Hello,
I'm learning to interpret mediation analysis, but I'm not really getting it. I have the following "problem":
Mediation 1: Since the direct effect between x1 and y is not significant, but the paths through M are, can I conclude that this is a full mediation?
Mediation 2: I don't understand this one at all.. how can the path between m and y be significant when the other 2 aren't?
Mediation 3: Can i conclude that M isn't a mediator since the indirect effect of X is nog significant?
I calculates all these path's and p-values, so I hope i did this correct. If it isn't, then that is a lesson for next time.

I'm learning to interpret mediation analysis, but I'm not really getting it. I have the following "problem":
Mediation 1: Since the direct effect between x1 and y is not significant, but the paths through M are, can I conclude that this is a full mediation?
Mediation 2: I don't understand this one at all.. how can the path between m and y be significant when the other 2 aren't?
Mediation 3: Can i conclude that M isn't a mediator since the indirect effect of X is nog significant?
I calculates all these path's and p-values, so I hope i did this correct. If it isn't, then that is a lesson for next time.
