Skip to main content
. 2019 Apr 9;10:801. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00801

Table 4.

A summary of the hypotheses and results.

Hypotheses Results Remarks
H1a Positive relationships between SA and A and D Supported
Negative relationships between SA and C and E Supported
H1b Positive relationships between DA and A and D Partially supported A non-significant DA-D relationship, further suggesting an acceptable “maladaptive” effect of DA;
Positive relationships between DA and C and E Supported Highlighting the adaptive role of DA
H2a Positive relationships between DRP and SA and DA Supported A stronger relationship found between DPR and DA
H2b SA as mediators between DRP and A, D, C, and E Supported
DA as mediators between DRP and A, D, C, and E Partially supported A non-significant indirect effect of DRP on D via DA
H2c Positive indirect relationships between DRP and A and D Supported Significant, though weak, total indirect effects;
Positive indirect relationships between DRP and C and E Rejected Non-significant total indirect effects
H3a Positive relationships between SM and SA and DA Supported A stronger relationship found between SM and SA
H3b SA as mediators between SM and A, D, C, and E Supported
DA as mediators between SM and A, D, C, and E Partially supported A non-significant indirect effect of SM on D via DA
H3c Positive indirect relationships between SM and A and D Supported
Negative indirect relationships between SM and C and E Supported

DRP, Display rule perceptions; SM, Self-monitoring; SA, surface acting; DA, deep acting; A, Anxiety; D, Depression; C, Contentment; E, Enthusiasm.