Will recalling a purchase increase your well‐being? The sequential mediating roles of postpurchase sharing and relatedness need satisfaction

To shed light on the underlying mechanisms of the relationship between purchase type and well‐being (including hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being), this study explored the mediating roles of both postpurchase sharing and relatedness need satisfaction in a Chinese sample. In the current study, participants were required to recall an impressive past purchase and report the level of postpurchase sharing, relatedness need satisfaction, and well‐being experienced after the purchase. The results indicated that (a) participants in the experiential purchase group reported higher levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being than did those in the material purchase group, and (b) postpurchase sharing and relatedness need satisfaction sequentially mediated the relationship between purchase type and well‐being. Specifically, individuals were more willing to share with others after experiential purchases than after material ones. Therefore, in turn, they experienced higher levels of relatedness need satisfaction, which was conducive to higher levels of both hedonic and eudaimonic well‐being.     

The Problem of Authorship and the Project of Chinese Philosophy: Zhuang Zhou and the <Emphasis Type="BoldItalic">Zhuangzi</Emphasis><Emphasis Type="Bold">between Sinology and Philosophy in the Western Academy</Emphasis>

This essay looks into a particular aspect of Sinological challenge to the modern project of Chinese philosophy within the Western academy through the lens of authorship, using the Zhuangzi 莊子 as a case study. It explores philosophical implications for texts whose authorship is in doubt and develops a new heuristic model of authorship and textuality, so that a more robust intellectual space for the philosophical discourse on Chinese classics can be carved out from the dominant historicist Sinological discourse. It argues that philosophical and Sinological approaches to Chinese classics have divergent scholarly objectives and follow different disciplinary norms. To clarify such divergence, it proposes a heuristic model to distinguish two sets of scholarly objects operative in Sinology and philosophy respectively, namely original text versus inherited text, historical author versus textual author, and authorial intent versus textual intent. These two sets of scholarly objects are related, at times overlapping but often irreducibly distinct, with the former in the pairs belonging to Sinologists and the latter to philosophers.