How to intrepret one significant and one insignificant mediator and a significant direct effect in PROCESS? I have conducted a mediation analysis with two mediators using PROCESS.
My findings are that in X -- a --> M1 -- b --> Y, a and b are significant.
However in X -- c --> M2 -- d --> Y, only d is significant while c is not.
Moreover X --> Y is significant in the mediation model, but not in the Total Effect Model.
What can I make from these findings? I am a little stuck and would appreciate your help! 
Thanks
 A: *

*Looks like you have a partial parallel mediation model. By partial mediation, it is meant that X (the antecedent) affects Y (the outcome variable) both through each mediator (M1 and M2), as well as directly (X->Y). By parallel, it is meant that you are testing two mediators at once in parallel (which by the way can be either complementary or competitive: see this paper by Zhao et al (2010) with 5,000+ citations for more details). 

*Now, consider X -> M1 -> Y; and X -> Y mediation first. For this part of the model, you can conclude that there is partial mediation if both the indirect effect (the a*b term), and the direct effect (X -> Y, let's call it z) are both significant. If only a*b term is significant but z is not, you have the case of full mediation. Finally, if the a path is non-significant, there is no mediation even is the direct effect z is significant. 

*The same logic can be applied to another part of the model (X -> M2 -> Y; X -> Y). So, I would describe both of these parts of the model in turn. 

*At last, your total effect is essentially the effect of X on Y through both mediators (M1 and M2) and the direct effect (X -> Y). So you can see that in its calculation all paths are included. Unless you are specifically interested in the total effect of X on Y (which takes all paths into account simultaneously), I would not usually reporting it. Commenting on each mediation (through M1 and M2) usually suffices. 

References
Zhao, X., Lynch Jr, J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197-206.
