## 5 Results and Discussion  
### Hypothesis Testing Results and Discussion  
Path analysis was used with each latent indicator to examine the relationships between each latent variable and the study's stated hypotheses. PLS-SEM was used to determine \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Latent Constructs** & **ANG** & **ANX** & **DEJ** & **HAP** \\ \hline ANG & 0.787 & - & - & - \\ ANX & 0.787 & 0.749 & - & - \\ DEJ & 0.799 & 0.807 & 0.720 & - \\ HAP & \(-0.660\) & \(-0.656\) & \(-0.622\) & 0.799 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Discriminant validity results (Fornell–Lracker criterion). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Construct** & **ANG** & **ANX** & **DEJ** & **HAP** \\ \hline ANG & - & - & - & - \\ ANX & 0.895 & - & - & - \\ DEJ & 0.894 & 0.892 & - & - \\ HAP & 0.780 & 0.737 & 0.721 & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 7: Discriminant validity (HTMT criterion). Figure 3: A completed structural model with exterior loading. the relevance of the path coefficients. Table 8 displays the computed latent variable path coefficients and t-values. Except for hypothesis H1, all other hypotheses were confirmed. The main findings are listed below and summarized in Figure 4:  
* Workplace dejection had no statistically significant relationship with workplace happiness (\(\beta=-0.107\); \(p\)-value \(>0.05\)); therefore, H1 was rejected. * Workplace anger had a negative effect on work happiness (\(\beta=-0.327\); \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)). Therefore, H2 was supported. * Workplace anxiety was found to have a substantial negative relationship with workplace happiness (\(\beta=-0.314\); \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)). Therefore, H3 was supported. * Workplace dejection exhibited a substantial positive relationship with workplace anxiety (\(\beta=0.494\); \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)). Therefore, H4 was supported. * Workplace anger had a positive effect on workplace anxiety (\(\beta=0.393\); \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)). Therefore, H5 was supported. * Workplace anxiety affected the association between dejection and happiness (\(\beta=-0.155\); \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)). Therefore, H6 was supported. * Workplace anxiety was found to be a mediator in the association between anger and happiness (\(\beta=-0.123\); \(p\)-value \(<0.05\)). Therefore, H7 was supported. The model's R\({}^{2}\) was calculated to determine the extent to which the independent factors changed the dependent constructs. We also hypothesized that the experiment's collection of variables considerably affected employee sentiments. On the basis of the study data and bootstrapping results, we established that workplace dejection and anger significantly affected workplace anxiety. Changes in workplace dejection and anger were demonstrated to have an effect on anxiety, with R\({}^{2}\) = 0.708; that is, dejection and anger in the workplace contributed 70.8% to anxiety. According to the R\({}^{2}\) value of 0.489, workplace dejection, anger, and anxiety all significantly influenced workplace happiness (Figure 5). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Path** & **Path Coefficient** & \(t\)**-Statistics** & \(p\)**-Value** & **Remarks** \\ \hline DEJ \(\rightarrow\) HAP & \(-0.107\) & \(1.494\) & \(0.136\) & H1: unsupported \\ ANG \(\rightarrow\) HAP & \(-0.327\) & \(4.366\) & \(0.000\) & H2: supported \\ ANX \(\rightarrow\) HAP & \(-0.314\) & \(4.143\) & \(0.000\) & H3: supported \\ DEJ \(\rightarrow\) ANX & \(0.494\) & \(8.279\) & \(0.000\) & H4: supported \\ ANG \(\rightarrow\) ANX & \(0.393\) & \(5.738\) & \(0.000\) & H5: supported \\ DEJ \(\rightarrow\) ANX \(\rightarrow\) HAP & \(-0.155\) & \(3.853\) & \(0.000\) & H6: supported \\ ANG \(\rightarrow\) ANX \(\rightarrow\) HAP & \(-0.123\) & \(3.085\) & \(0.002\) & H7: supported \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note: \(p\)-values were considered significant at the 0.05 level.  
\end{table} 
Table 8: Hypotheses testing results. Figure 5 shows the patterns indicated by the research findings.