Since the indirect effect is the product of two or more regression coefficients, it is not impossible or uncommon for it to be smaller than the direct effect yet statistically significant.

When running a mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro for SPSS, the direct effect represents the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y) when the mediator (M) is not considered. The indirect effect, on the other hand, represents the relationship between X and Y mediated through M.Interpreting a higher estimate for the direct effect compared to the indirect effect in a mediation analysis can indicate two possible scenarios:

1- Full Mediation Not Present:

If the direct effect is larger than the indirect effect, it suggests that there is no full mediation present in the relationship.

This means that the mediator does not completely explain or mediate the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

In this case, the independent variable still has a significant direct effect on the dependent variable even when accounting for the mediator.

2- Partial Mediation Present:

Another interpretation is that partial mediation is present in the relationship.

If the direct effect is larger than the indirect effect, it suggests that the mediator only partially mediates the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

This means that the mediator accounts for some but not all of the relationship between X and Y.

The direct effect represents the direct influence of X on Y, while the indirect effect represents the mediated influence of X on Y through M.

@ Choudhry Umer Sultan thank you for your detailed response. I have one general question: So you mentioned the mediator is not considered in the direct effect. However, the mediator is part of the model (as the model is controlled for the mediator, otherwise, we are talking about the total effect, which is the simple association between X and Y, right? Regarding your differentiation between full and partial mediation. A lot of references base the decision on partial and full mediation mainly on the CI/ significance level and do not consider the estimate in their interpretation. So concluding if 0 is within the CI (non-significant)--> full mediation

Exactly. But as I mentioned If the direct effect is larger than the indirect effect, it suggests that the mediator only partially mediates the relationship between the independent and dependent variables.

This means that the mediator accounts for some but not all of the relationship between X and Y.

When interpreting a mediation analysis using the PROCESS macro in SPSS and you find that the direct effect estimate is higher than the indirect effect estimate, it suggests that the relationship between the independent variable (X) and the dependent variable (Y) is primarily operating through pathways other than the mediator (M).

Ganji Kashmira Thank you very much. One more question: My results indicate that the estimate of the total effect (c=0.403) is a little bit lower than the indirect effect (a*b=0.405) and therefore results in a negative direct effect (-0.002). I do not understand how it is possible that the indirect effect has a higher estimate than the total effect. Do you have an idea?

@Christian Geiser your are perfectly said as same i was ,

If the direct effect is higher than the indirect effect in a mediation analysis using PROCESS macro for SPSS, it means that the mediator variable does not fully mediate the relationship between the independent variable and dependent variable. In other words, there is still a significant direct effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable even after accounting for the mediator variable

The macro allows users to automate data analysis and streamline their workflow in SPSS. It computes regression analyses containing various combinations of mediators, moderators, and covariates.

I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions.

Choudhry Umer Sultan Thanks it helps a lot. However, one more aspect which confuses me: My results indicate that the estimate of the total effect (c=0.403) is a little bit lower than the indirect effect (a*b=0.405) and therefore results in a negative direct effect (-0.002). I do not understand how it is possible that the indirect effect has a higher estimate than the total effect. Do you have an idea?

Yes, it is possible for the indirect effect to have a higher estimate than the total effect. This can happen when the direct effect is negative and the indirect effect is positive and large enough to offset the negative direct effect .

Choudhry Umer Sultan. Thank you. From a statistical/mathematical point of view, it is logical, of course. However, in interpreting these results, I have my difficulties.