Shiyan Liao
Hasnain Javed2*- 1School of Education, Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing, China
- 2Lahore College for Women University, Lahore, Pakistan
- 3The Higher Education Research Office of Guangdong Academy of Education, Guangzhou, China
- 4Department of Business Administration, Community College, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia
This study aimed to investigate the impact of entrepreneurial educational support (NEES), entrepreneurial activities support (NEAS), and entrepreneurial commercialization support (NECS) on the nascent entrepreneurial intention (NEI) by mediating roles of entrepreneurial self-efficacy (NESE), opportunity recognition (OR), and the moderating effect of meaning in life (MLI). Data were gathered using a survey questionnaire from the 868 management, engineering, technical, and vocational institute students of China. The NEI model was analyzed using the partial least squares structural equation modeling through Smart-PLS software. The findings of the study reveal that NEES, NEAS, and NECS have a positive effect on NEI. Meanwhile, results indicate that NESE and OR partially mediate the relationship between entrepreneurship support programs and nascent entrepreneurial intention. Furthermore, the relationship between NESE and the NEI was insignificantly influenced by MLI, and the relationship between OR and the NEI was significantly moderated by MLI. Lastly, implications and limitations are also discussed in this article.
Introduction
The role of entrepreneurship support programs is considered as one of the main factors in creating optimistic expectations of capabilities for new business start-up ventures (Scott et al., 2016), cultivating desirable self-employment behaviors (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994), and ambitions for entrepreneurship (Chen et al., 1998; Nambisan et al., 2018). Given the growing interest from students in academic entrepreneurship and new venture creation, relatively less systematic work has established entrepreneurship education and the support factors that can promote entrepreneurship among university students (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015; Wu et al., 2016; Chen and Zhou, 2017).
Prior research attempted to investigate the effectiveness of entrepreneurial education in the context of Saudi universities, and results were found to be satisfactory, including student satisfaction and success in the entrepreneurship course, which may be inadequate constructs of entrepreneurial educational effectiveness (Ge et al., 2017; Ayed, 2020). Moreover, Fellnhofer and Puumalainen (2017) showed that involvement in an entrepreneurship program substantially increased the perceived viability of starting up a company. Entrepreneurial education teaches the various aspects of starting a new business through a series of courses and practical activities that focus on providing knowledge and practical skills to increase the likelihood of entrepreneurial success (Tarling et al., 2016). The necessity and importance of entrepreneurial education are well emphasized in the existing literature (Liu et al., 2019; Gianiodis and Meek, 2020). It is believed that entrepreneurs can be nurtured through entrepreneurship education (Ronstadt, 1985; Garavan and O’Cinneide, 1994; Gibb, 2002). Also, it is necessary to carry out entrepreneurship education because it can support and formulate the entrepreneurial intention (Entrialgo and Iglesias, 2016). Furthermore, entrepreneurial education reduces the chances of start-up failures and well-informed the entrepreneur with market information asymmetries (McGrath, 1999).
Existing studies have argued that entrepreneurial support programs are essential because they provide an individual to experience exploration and revitalization (Parker, 2018), and provide an individual with opportunities to improve their confidence in entrepreneurship (Karimi et al., 2016). However, despite the necessity and positive recognition of entrepreneurial education, there is still a lack of consistent evidence on entrepreneurial education that can help to foster more or better entrepreneurs (Nowiński et al., 2019). Entrepreneurial education and an entrepreneurial cognitive mindset have a positive relationship (Costa et al., 2018). Thus, it can change the negative perception of entrepreneurship with the medium of education and awareness programs. It replaces the uncertainty of the entrepreneur with knowledge through systematic education programs (Nabi et al., 2017). The education support program is beneficial because it helps to induce entrepreneurial intention and spirit (Kierulff, 2005; Michaelides and Benus, 2012).
Entrepreneurship support programs enhance the entrepreneurial knowledge of individuals, reducing their perceived uncertainty and improving their confidence (Mozahem and Adlouni, 2021). Numerous previous studies have discussed the cognitive factors of entrepreneurial intention, including demographic attributes (Sanoubar et al., 2018), parent and grandparent background (Li and Liu, 2019), role models (Leiter, 1993), entrepreneurial self-efficacy (NESE) (Tsai et al., 2016), locus of control (Leonelli et al., 2016), self-confidence (Willness and Bruni-Bossio, 2017), need for achievement (Dy et al., 2017), market experience (Anwar and Daniel, 2016), and personality characteristics (Travis and Freeman, 2017). The research on entrepreneurship support programs is empirically less examined by the researchers in the literature. Therefore, this study provides some contributions to prior literature on entrepreneurship. First, a few studies have provided evidence that entrepreneurship support programs and NESE can enhance self-confidence or inspire positive emotion (Hamzah et al., 2016; Nabi et al., 2018; García-Vidal et al., 2019). However, there is a lack of an integrated perspective when exploring the intervening mechanism in the relationship between entrepreneurship education programs, NESE, opportunity recognition (OR), and entrepreneurial intention.
Second, particularly in entrepreneurship literature, entrepreneurship education programs, such as entrepreneurship education support, entrepreneurship activities support, and entrepreneurship commercialization support on NESE, OR, and entrepreneurial intention, are regarded as central emotion and cognition fueling entrepreneurial outcomes. Third, the research on entrepreneurship support programs and entrepreneurial intention is vague (Kraaijenbrink et al., 2010). Most of the prior studies examined the direct effect of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial intention (Turner and Gianiodis, 2018; Bazkiaei et al., 2020), NESE (Nowiński et al., 2019), and entrepreneurial intention/behavior (Elliott et al., 2020; Wardana et al., 2020). Fourth, the mediating role of NESE and OR in the relationship between entrepreneurship support programs and nascent entrepreneurial intention (NEI) is still under-exported. Fifth, this study introduces the moderating effect of meaning in life (MLI) in the relationship between NESE, OR, and NEI. This relationship is not tested by prior researchers in the literature. Therefore, to fill this research gap, this study contributes to the existing literature on entrepreneurship support programs on NEI among university students.
Theory and hypotheses development
Entrepreneurial intention defines the link between both ideas and actions that are essential to analyze the process of entrepreneurship (Bird, 1988; Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). According to Ajzen (1991), the intention shows how motivated and willing people carry out the desired behavior. The intention has also been defined as a mindset that focuses on personal attention to achieve something toward a particular goal or path. The intention is also proved as the main determinant of planned behavior (Bagozzi et al., 1989), specifically when it is unique, difficult to track, or has unexpected time delays (Krueger and Carsrud, 1993). A new business has arisen over time with extensive preparation, and thus, entrepreneurship is precisely the form of expected behavior. The position to the action reflects the personal desirability of a new business being evaluated by individuals. In contrast, subjective norms reveal the perception of individuals regarding what is the opinion of people about the importance of entrepreneurial development in their lives. Perceived behavioral control demonstrates the perception that individuals can successfully start a new business.
Entrepreneurship support programs and entrepreneurial intention
Universities are playing an important role in enhancing the entrepreneurship of university students and implementing entrepreneurship through various entrepreneurship support programs, such as entrepreneurial education, special lectures, awareness session, club activities for concept development, and commercialization support (Maresch et al., 2016; Minai et al., 2018). Entrepreneurial education has a significant impact on developing an entrepreneurial attitude toward entrepreneurial intention to start a new business (Schwarz et al., 2009). In addition to entrepreneurial education, entrepreneurship support programs, such as entrepreneurial activity support and entrepreneurial commercialization support (NECS), raise the possibility of actual nascent entrepreneurial ventures for university students. Therefore, there is no doubt that the entrepreneurship support program offered by the university is very effective in increasing the capacity of university students to start their businesses (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Fuller et al., 2018).
Based on the prior literature, it is suggested that entrepreneurship support programs have a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention and venture creation (Gerbin and Drnovsek, 2016; Tran and Von Korflesch, 2016). An existing study by Maresch et al. (2016) argued that in the case of university students, no matter how high the entrepreneurial intention to start a business, it is difficult to actively start a business while simultaneously studying. Therefore, it is difficult for university students to activate their nascent entrepreneurial ventures if they do not create a supportive environment for start-ups or actively support their start-up-related activities (Moser et al., 2017). Primarily, university students’ attitude toward start-ups is not as strong as they think (Bergmann et al., 2016), and the idea of immediate interests is ahead of business continuity. Also, there are various disadvantages and inconveniences in utilizing various kinds of entrepreneurship support programs (Cho et al., 2016). Nevertheless, if universities can provide college students with a strong entrepreneurial intention to start their businesses and provide them with everything they need, it will be easier for university students to become an entrepreneur (Bergmann et al., 2016). Therefore, this study established the following hypothesis.
H1a: Entrepreneurial educational support (NEES) has a positive and significant impact on NEI.
H1b: Entrepreneurial activities support (NEAS) has a positive and significant influence on NEI.
H1c: Entrepreneurial commercialization support has a positive and significant influence on NEI.
Entrepreneurship support programs and entrepreneurial self-efficacy
Entrepreneurial university growth is a common trend worldwide, which has drawn policymakers’ consideration. Entrepreneurial universities are respected for their economic contributions (such as trademarks, licenses, and start-up businesses) and processes of knowledge transfer (Etzkowitz and Zhou, 2017). A large amount of scholarship has shown universities as seedbeds for cultivating an entrepreneurial spirit and environment. Universities play a significant role in recognizing and improving the entrepreneurial qualities of students and enabling them to start their businesses, thus contributing effectively to economic growth and job development (Henry et al., 2017). Universities, therefore, have an important role in developing new entrepreneurial ventures by promoting a competitive climate and making a major contribution to the economy and society.
Moreover, existing literature has acknowledged the entrepreneur’s educational importance and assistance in creating beneficial views of the competence of start-up firms (Scott et al., 2016). Entrepreneurial education has been correlated with improved behaviors and new start-up plans (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Hartshorn and Hannon, 2005). Indeed, university students who took classes in entrepreneurship were more involved in being entrepreneurs relative to those who did not (Kolvereid and Moen, 1997; Neto et al., 2017). University support policies and activities may help the start-ups of students, such as technology transfer offices, business incubators, physical capital, and university venture fund. A successful entrepreneurial education curriculum and university entrepreneurial encouragement are powerful ways to gain the requisite information regarding entrepreneurship and inspire young people to pursue an entrepreneurial future (Van der Zwan et al., 2016).
Furthermore, Liguori et al. (2018) found that many students’ entrepreneurial aspirations are thwarted by inadequate preparation, their market experience is insufficient, and more significantly, they are not prepared to take chances to realize their dreams. Shamsudeen et al. (2017) proposed that entrepreneurial education is successful because it helps participants to build a higher creativity capacity and the desire to think conceptually and see the transition as an opportunity. Kraaijenbrink et al. (2010) indicated that it would be necessary to quantify the magnitude of their effect on students, even though universities would promote entrepreneurship in other objectively calculated ways, to recognize the influence of such initiatives. There are different types of entrepreneurship support programs. First, universities should provide the general knowledge and skills required to implement a new project to display entrepreneurial skills as part of their typical teaching function. Second, considering their marketing position, universities may offer more precise and focused resources to individual students or groups of students to start their entrepreneurial ventures (Lim et al., 2016; Mustafa et al., 2016). Krueger and Brazeal (1994), proposed that entrepreneurial education would boost perceived entrepreneurship feasibility by growing learner awareness and confidence and promoting self-efficacy. This implies the enterprise services and related resources offered by universities will play a significant role in fostering NESE among their students.
H2a: Entrepreneurial educational support has a positive impact on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
H2b: Entrepreneurial activities support has a positive influence on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
H2c: Entrepreneurial commercialization support has a positive effect on entrepreneurial self-efficacy.
Entrepreneurship support programs and opportunity recognition
A few empirical studies have examined the relationship between entrepreneurship support programs and awareness of OR. Ardichvili et al. (2003) asserted the integrated model of recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities and entrepreneurial intention. The identification and creation of opportunities that led to the establishment of enterprises include entrepreneurial alertness, information asymmetry and prior knowledge, social networks, personality traits, self-efficacy, creativity, and the opportunity itself. The mechanism of this relationship leads to a certain degree of entrepreneurial alertness and the creation of entrepreneurial opportunity, which involves recognition and evaluation. Moreover, Wright et al. (2017) found a direct relationship between entrepreneurial education and recognition of entrepreneurial opportunities. Li et al. (2020) argued that individuals with a high-level capacity to recognize the opportunities are more likely to exploit those opportunities in the market. OR involves four activities: recording the opportunities encountered during the day; creating opportunities through their introduction, teamwork, and the like; disclosing and contemplating one’s ideas through brainstorming and the like to achieve crucial conception; and creating inclination to new challenges through the experience of failure. Thus, based on the discussion, this study hypothesized;
H3a: Entrepreneurial educational support has a positive effect on opportunity recognition.
H3b: Entrepreneurial activity has a positive impact on opportunity recognition.
H3c: Entrepreneurial commercialization has a positive impact on opportunity recognition.
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention
Prior studies argued that NESE provides a significant impact on entrepreneurial intention (Naktiyok et al., 2010; Hsu et al., 2019; Xiaoping et al., 2019). NESE refers to an individual’s belief in his/her capability to perform tasks and roles aimed at entrepreneurial outcomes (Li et al., 2020; Jiatong et al., 2021a). Several studies examined the role of NESE on the university entrepreneurial intention of students (Rosique-Blasco et al., 2018; Asimakopoulos et al., 2019). Universities do not reflect the consideration of a relationship between entrepreneurial intention and actual start-ups when developing entrepreneurship support programs. Universities’ entrepreneurship support programs are developed during their respective semester, as programs offered after graduation are not considered to be undertaken by students (Galloway and Brown, 2002; Debarliev et al., 2020). If an individual intends to start their businesses, they can raise their intentions by taking classes, training, or joining an entrepreneurial club (Peterman and Kennedy, 2003; Nowiński et al., 2019). The students who experienced various entrepreneurship support programs implemented by the university showed higher entrepreneurial intentions (Souitaris et al., 2007).
Moreover, university students can reinforce their intention to start a new business by directly or indirectly experiencing cases related to the start-up of their parents or acquaintances. In other words, when university students experience the role model related to entrepreneurship, their intention to start up can be increased (Sequeira et al., 2007; Elliott et al., 2020). Therefore, individuals with a higher level of NESE are more likely to start a new business venture (Krueger, 1993; Yang, 2019). Therefore, this study established the following hypothesis.
H4: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy has a positive effect on entrepreneurial intention.
Opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial intention
The role of OR in entrepreneurship has been recognized by prior researchers (Alvarez and Barney, 2007; Mary George et al., 2016). Entrepreneurship is not only found through opportunity identification but also through OR and discovery (Shane, 2003). OR is an objective opportunity to be found by creative people from the perspective of Schumpeter’s innovation (Drejer, 2004). On the other hand, OR has been created through the ideas, interactions, or exchanges among people from the perspective of the individuals. It is recognized that the OR obtained through the entrepreneurship support program leads to entrepreneurial intention. Therefore, students who received entrepreneurial education were assessed on different levels for OR (Ramos-Rodriguez et al., 2010; Asante and Affum-Osei, 2019). Therefore, this study argued that entrepreneurship support programs help students to improve their ability to identify and exploit the entrepreneurial opportunity to become entrepreneurs (Kang et al., 2016). Therefore, this study established the following hypothesis.
H5: Opportunity recognition has a positive influence on entrepreneurial intention.
Mediating effect of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and opportunity recognition
The relationship between NESE and OR has been studied by prior researchers (Tumasjan and Braun, 2012; Urban and Galawe, 2020). NESE and OR are described as the individual’s belief and ability to identify the new and productive ideas from the entrepreneurial intention (Al-Shammari and Al Shammari, 2018). NESE and OR are the central practices of entrepreneurship that provide knowledge to an individual for identifying the business needs and constantly analyzing relevant skills gained through creative ideas (Tsai et al., 2016; Guo et al., 2017). Entrepreneurs gain skills through entrepreneurship training, recognize successful expertise from a vast volume of content, transform input into new goods or services, develop new markets, maximize growth potential, and lead to team building (Mustafa et al., 2016). Therefore, an individual with a high level of NESE is more likely to cope with and control the challenges and risks that can arise during the start-up process (Krueger and Brazeal, 1994; Solesvik, 2017). Thus, we believed that self-efficacy and OR are useful predictors for measuring entrepreneurial intention, because individuals with a higher level of NESE identify the entrepreneurial opportunity, to start a new business venture (Jiang et al., 2017). Therefore, the intention to start a business is likely to vary depending on NESE and OR (Brändle et al., 2018). Consequently, this study formulated the following hypotheses.
H6a: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial educational support and entrepreneurial intention.
H6b: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial activity support and entrepreneurial intention.
H6c: Entrepreneurial self-efficacy positively mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial commercialization support and entrepreneurial intention.
H7a: Opportunity recognition mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial educational support and entrepreneurial intention.
H7b: Opportunity recognition mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial activity support and entrepreneurial intention.
H7c: Opportunity recognition mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial commercialization support and entrepreneurial intention.
The meaning in life and entrepreneurial intention
There is a great saying by William James, “Do not be scared of creation. Believe that life is worth living and the reality would be produced by your conviction” (James, 1956). MLI, in the true sense, is a double-edged sword. Such a common conviction is practical in certain cases and enhances the sense of optimism and intent of the nation. Nevertheless, in stressful circumstances, these individuals suffer from broken expectations when this conviction is undermined by the grim truth (Brandt and Proulx, 2016). According to MLI implies a deep conviction that is a certain form of action or the condition of being personal or socially more acceptable than the alternative type of conduct. The relationship between MLI and entrepreneurial intention is less empirically examined by researchers in the field of entrepreneurship. Therefore, it is not impossible to believe that entrepreneurship ability affects human lives. MLI may play an invigorating function in the transition from idea to execution. Thus, we believed that MLI might foster entrepreneurial intention. So, we predicted the following hypothesis.
H8: The meaning in life has a positive impact on entrepreneurial intention.
Moderating effect of meaning in life
Meaning in life is not meant to be delivered explicitly, but instead an interaction that encompasses something special. To be able to frame this something else in terms of life means some sort of representation has to be made. According to Frankl (1985), MLI is the underlying motivation for human behavior, which helps one to attain spiritual wellness. Based on the taxonomy of self-sense experiences, it was proposed that value in existence should be strongly associated with assumptions regarding entrepreneurial intention. Under other terms, people with greater MLI will have better support for entrepreneurial self-efficacy, OR, and entrepreneurial intention. In specific, MLI was hypothesized to strengthen entrepreneurial self-efficacy and OR, which ultimately would affect entrepreneurial intention.
H9: The meaning in life moderates the relationship between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention.
H10: The meaning in life moderates the relationship between opportunity recognition and entrepreneurial intention.
Conceptual model
The conceptual model depicting the relationships and hypothesis is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Conceptual model.
Materials and methods
Sample and data collection
Considering the relevance of education, the current study attempted to investigate the effect of entrepreneurship support programs on formulating entrepreneurial intentions in the higher education sector of China. Higher education in this context refers to universities and technical and vocational institutions. A purposive sampling technique was used because this technique enables researchers to squeeze a lot of information out of the data that they have collected from the sample. This study targeted the management, engineering, technical, and vocational institute students of China. We did not select faculty members for data collection because they do not have much experience to implement changes to support entrepreneurship programs. Moreover, students were the main respondents, as they are better aware of entrepreneurship support program scenarios in their respective environmental settings. We randomly distributed the questionnaire among the students during their free time to enhance the quality of responses. The survey was conducted from 1 January 2020 to 20 February 2020. The data were collected using time lags of 5 weeks between the two rounds. In the first 2 weeks, we collected data for the entrepreneurship support programs. For the remaining 2 weeks, the same procedure was adopted from the same respondents for the data collection of other predictors, such as NESE, OR, MLI, and entrepreneurial intention to minimize the issue of common method bias. Among the valid questionnaires, 450 (51.8%) were filled by men and 418 (48.1%) by women. The mean age was 1.78 years with a standard deviation of 0.829. The education of students falls between different disciplines: bachelor’s (46.1%), master’s (19.4%), Ph.D. (2.3), and vocational diploma (32.0%).
Measures
This study used measurement scales that had been tested and validated by previous researchers. A questionnaire comprising a total of 35 items was utilized to estimate the effect of each scale. All the items were ranked on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (7).
Nascent entrepreneurial intention
To assess NEI, we used five items from a prior study (Li et al., 2020). This scale was used by existing researchers to examine the entrepreneurial intention of students (Liñán and Chen, 2009; Jiatong et al., 2021b). A sample item is “I am ready to do anything to be an entrepreneur.”
Entrepreneurship support programs
To measure the entrepreneurship support programs of university students, the entrepreneurship support programs scale was divided into three dimensions: entrepreneurial educational support, NEAS, and NECS.
Entrepreneurial educational support
To measure NEES, we used five items from a previous study (Omer and Aljaaidi, 2020). A sample item is “The University offers elective courses on entrepreneurship.”
Entrepreneurial activities support
To evaluate entrepreneurial activities support, we used four measurement items from a previous study (Omer and Aljaaidi, 2020). A sample item is “My University sipper the entrepreneurial activities and encouraged me to consider taking risks.”
Entrepreneurial commercialization support
To assess NECS, we adopted five items from a previous study (Jiatong et al., 2021b). A sample item is “My University focuses on the commercialization of innovative ideas and promotes entrepreneurship.”
Entrepreneurial self-efficacy
To measure NESE, three items were used on a seven-point Likert scale. The items were adopted from a previous study (Zhao et al., 2005). A sample item is “I am convinced that I can successfully create new products.”
Opportunity recognition
To assess OR, we used five-item scales from the study by Kuckertz et al. (2017). A sample item is “I am always alert to business opportunities.”
Meaning in life
Meaning in life was measured based on Frankl’s theory, and all the items were measured on a seven-point Likert scale. The measurement scale for MLI was adopted from the study by Steger et al. (2006). A sample item is “I am seeking a purpose or mission for my life.”
Measurement model
The measurement model analysis was performed using Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted. Table 1 shows that all the values of Cronbach’s alpha, composite reliability, and average variance extracted were satisfactory and according to the suggested benchmark > 0.70 and >0.50 by previous researchers (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair et al., 2012; Fuller et al., 2018; Cai et al., 2021).
Table 1. Measurement model.
Validity test
To test the construct validity, this study used two criteria: Fornell–Larcker and heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT). Both criteria were widely used for assessing discriminant validity (Henseler et al., 2015; Shirokova et al., 2016). The results presented in Tables 2, 3 indicate that the values of Fornell–Larcker and HTMT were acceptable.
Table 2. Fornell–Larcker criteria.
Table 3. Heterotrait-monotrait ratio criteria.
Results
Direct effects
The results were analyzed through Smart-PLS 3.3.9 software, and the partial least squares structural equation modeling technique was adopted for the estimation of the structural model. The SEM technique incorporates measurement error and provides best-suited predictions of interaction effects, such as direct, mediation, and moderation (Henseler et al., 2015; Li et al., 2020). The results of the hypotheses are presented in Table 4 and Figure 2. The validity testing of H1a shows that NEES had a positive and significant impact on the NEI with a path coefficient beta 0.119, t-value 2.398, and p < 0.05. Thus, H1a was accepted. Moreover, H1b findings indicate that NEAS had a positive but insignificant effect on the NEI with a path coefficient beta 0.08, t-value 1.523, and p > 0.010. Therefore, H1b was not supported. In addition, H1c results show that NECS had a positive impact on the NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.172, t-value of 3.536, and p < 0.05. Thus, H1c was accepted. Additionally, to test H2a, the empirical findings indicate that NEES had a positive effect on NESE with a path coefficient beta of 0.327, t-value of 7.322, and p < 0.05. So, H2a was supported. Moreover, H2b results show that NEAS had a positive influence on NESE with a path coefficient beta of 0.294, t-value of 7.099, p < 0.05. Consequently, H2b was accepted. Meanwhile, H2c results illustrate that NECS had a positive impact on NESE with a path coefficient beta of 0.119, t-value of 3.049, and p < 0.05. Therefore, H2c was accepted.
Table 4. Path coefficients (direct effects).
Figure 2. Structural model.
Apart from this, H3a findings show that NEES had a positive impact on OR with a path coefficient beta of 0.096, t-value of 2.272, and p < 0.05. Thus, H3a was accepted. Moreover, H3b results indicate that NEAS had a positive influence on OR with a path coefficient beta 0.219, t-value 4.635, and p < 0.05. So, H3b was supported. Meanwhile, H3c results explain that NECS had a positive impact on OR with a path coefficient beta of 0.373, t-value of 8.375, and p < 0.05. Hence, H3c was supported. Furthermore, H4 results show that NESE had a positive effect on the NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.096, t-value of 2.272, and p < 0.05. Therefore, H3c was accepted. Additionally, H5 results show that OR had a positive impact on the NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.219, t-value of 4.635, and p < 0.05. Consequently, H5 was accepted.
Indirect effects (mediation analysis)
Table 5 illustrates the specific indirect effects of the mediation analysis. H6a results show that NESE positively mediates the relationship between NEES and NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.031, t-value of 2.139, and p < 0.05. So, H6a was supported. Moreover, H6b findings reveal that NESE partially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial activity support and NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.028, t-value of 2.202, and p < 0.05. Therefore, H6b was accepted. Furthermore, H6c results indicate that NESE positively mediates the relationship between NECS and NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.011, t-value of 2.753, and p < 0.05. Hence, H6c was also accepted. Likewise, H7a results explain that OR positively mediates the relationship between NEES and NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.037, t-value of 3.029, and p < 0.05. So, H7a was supported. Meanwhile, H7b findings show that OR partially mediates the relationship between entrepreneurial activity support and entrepreneurial intention with a path coefficient beta of 0.029, t-value of 2.254, and p < 0.05. Thus, H7b was accepted. Lastly, H7c results indicate that OR partially mediates the relationship between NECS and NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.082, t-value of 4.012, and p < 0.05. Hence, H7c was also accepted.
Table 5. Specific indirect effects (mediation analysis).
Moderating effects
The results of the test conducted to determine the moderating effects are presented in Table 4. H8 results indicate that MLI had a positive and significant effect on the NEI with path coefficient beta of 0.117, t-value of 2.073, and p-value < 0.05. So, H8 was supported. Meanwhile, H9 results show that MLI had a negative and insignificant effect on the relationship between NESE and NEI with a path coefficient beta of –0.053, t-value of 1.621, and p > 0.010. Therefore, H9 was not supported. Furthermore, H10 findings indicate that MLI had a positive moderating effect on the relationship between OR and NEI with a path coefficient beta of 0.081, t-value of 2.424, and p < 0.05. Hence, H10 was accepted.
Discussion
The results of hypotheses H1a, H1b, and H1c indicate that entrepreneurship support programs were positively associated to form NEI s among students. This study finding argued that it is essential to provide entrepreneurship support programs through well-organized entrepreneurial start-up awareness training programs to drive the entrepreneurial spirit among students to do something innovative. Indeed, a prior study explained that students have a lot of innovative ideas, and they require a proper platform to exploit their ideas and be brainstormed, incubated, and transformed into the actual entrepreneurial intention (Nowiński et al., 2019). This result is in line with the prior studies, which found that students with a higher level of entrepreneurial support programs, such as educational support, activities support, and commercialization support, are more likely to engage in forming NEIs (Asimakopoulos et al., 2019; Li et al., 2020). Moreover, it is one of the major issues of developing economies that individuals have limited access to capital and commercialization of their respective innovative ideas in the market. Therefore, universities provide students a platform with techniques and procedures to commercialize their entrepreneurial ideas into reality, which will ultimately result in forming a higher level of NEI s that can later translate into nascent entrepreneurial behavior (Rauch and Hulsink, 2015).
Furthermore, H2a, H2b, and H2c results showed that entrepreneurship support programs significantly influenced NESE. This finding is similar to previous researchers who remarked that entrepreneurship education programs develop entrepreneurial mindset and self-efficacy among individuals to become entrepreneurs (Naktiyok et al., 2010; Liu et al., 2019). NESE acts as a blessing in disguise if there is proper educational support, entrepreneurial activity support, and NECS to develop NEI s.
Additionally, this study found that entrepreneurship support programs are positively related to OR, and its effect is further postulated under hypotheses H3a, H3b, and H3c. This finding is consistent with the existing studies (Ramos-Rodriguez et al., 2010; Ploum et al., 2018). It explains the phenomenon that students perceive entrepreneurship support programs as a trigger to OR that later translates into formulating entrepreneurial intentions. The rise in entrepreneurship support programs facilitates the young minds to identify the available opportunities, and before completing their respective degrees and diplomas, they make up their mind by developing the entrepreneurial intention to kick-start with entrepreneurial ventures.
Besides, H4 results indicated that NESE significantly influenced NEI. This result is consistent with prior studies that argued that students with a higher level of NESE are more engaged to form entrepreneurial intention that ultimately translates into entrepreneurial behavior (Yang et al., 2019; Jiatong et al., 2021b). Meanwhile, H5 findings revealed that OR is positively associated with NEI. This study finding is in line with the existing research (Reid et al., 2018), which remarked that entrepreneurship support programs help individuals to recognize and exploit the entrepreneurial opportunity.
Furthermore, the indirect effects of H6a, H6b, H6c, H7a, H7b, and H7c were also partially mediated in the relationship between entrepreneurship support programs and NESE, OR, and NEI. This finding provides an insightful contribution to the literature on entrepreneurship support programs using NESE and OR as a mediator and found a significant impact on NEI. Lastly, H8, H9, and H10 findings showed that MLI had a positive direct and moderating effect on the relationship between NESE, OR, and NEI. The MLI defines an individual purpose in life, such as whether they are satisfied in their respective lives and what sort of work or future they perceive. This study confirms that individuals who have high MLI are more likely to define the purpose that translates into formulating entrepreneurial intention.
Theoretical contributions
This study makes the following theoretical implications. First, this study develops the drivers of entrepreneurship support programs, particularly in the context of higher education by identifying the roles of NESE and OR. Prior studies have examined the antecedents of entrepreneurship, such as entrepreneurial traits (Şahin et al., 2019), entrepreneurial alertness (Li et al., 2020), entrepreneurial mindset (Jiatong et al., 2021b), and entrepreneurial education (Elliott et al., 2020). Entrepreneurship support programs in terms of educational support; NEAS, and commercialization support help students in designing the entrepreneurial start-up feasibility, providing financial support in terms of seed funds to promote entrepreneurial ideas that ultimately translate into forming an entrepreneurial intention.
Second, by investigating the mediating roles of NESE and OR, this study contributes a better understanding of the intervening mechanisms under which entrepreneurship support programs influence NEI. Prior research has highlighted the mediating role of entrepreneurial passion (Syed et al., 2020) and entrepreneurial orientation (Ciampi et al., 2021) in the process of entrepreneurial decision-making while ignoring the potential effects of NESE and OR, which are seen as central indicators that drive entrepreneurship. Prior researchers call for the study to identify the effects of entrepreneurial cognition and passion simultaneously on the relationship between environmental factors and entrepreneurial intentions (Neneh, 2020; Chandra et al., 2021).
Third, this study contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship support programs stimulating NESE to develop NEI among management, engineering, technical, and vocational students. Previous studies have examined the effect of entrepreneurial social identity centrality on nascent entrepreneurial behavior (Murnieks et al., 2020; Gur and Mathias, 2021). The results of this study revealed that entrepreneurship support programs have a significant effect on NESE and OR, which answered the call to examine the antecedents of NESE and OR.
Fourth, this study extends the literature on MLI in the relationship between NESE, OR, and NEI. Existing studies have investigated the role of proactive personality and anticipated regret on entrepreneurial intention/behavioral models (Li et al., 2020; Neneh, 2020). Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on entrepreneurship and found a significant moderating impact on MLI among young entrepreneurs who want to start a new business venture.
Practical implications
The study provides some practical implications for educators, universities, and policymakers. First, universities should implement measures to reinforce entrepreneurship support programs and develop NESE among students, and also focus on enhancing confidence and passion to identify the entrepreneurial opportunity. Universities introduce various entrepreneurship support programs, arrange entrepreneurial competitions, and provide capital support and technical guidance for students to engage in entrepreneurial start-up activities. Second, universities should arrange some entrepreneurial seminars and invite corporate leaders to conduct fruitful lecturers for students. Universities made entrepreneurial education compulsory for every undergraduate and graduate degree to resolve the accelerating issue of unemployment. Third, the government should launch some entrepreneurship support programs to facilitate the entrepreneurs and start-ups with micro-finance loans at easy installments. To stimulate entrepreneurship, the government should establish business incubator centers for students and provide financial support to articulate their business ideas into reality. This reflects the bright chances of generating abundant young minds with higher entrepreneurial intentions. Fourth, universities and colleges should adopt different teaching programs to improve the NESE of different groups of students through categorized teaching and guidance, so that they can find an effective orientation that meets their entrepreneurial intentions. Universities should actively integrate the current entrepreneurship support programs and cases into the on-campus entrepreneurship education, so that the support from the external environment of entrepreneurship can be effectively transformed into the improvement of NESE and OR of college students, which can in turn act positively on their NEI s and behaviors. Lastly, universities and other academic forums design the best entrepreneurship support programs for students, so before the student enters the job market they must have concrete entrepreneurial venture parallel established.
Limitations and future research directions
There are some limitations and future research directions of our study should be acknowledged. First, in contrast to most of the studies in the prior literature, our study focus is on NEI s rather than actual entrepreneurial behavior. An existing study has revealed a positive relationship between perceived university support and entrepreneurial intention using the theory of planned behavior as a mediator (Liu et al., 2022). However, there is still a gap between other entrepreneurship support programs and actual entrepreneurial behavior. Our study is unable to investigate how many students will eventually transform their NEI s into entrepreneurial behavior to start a new business. Therefore, in the future, a cross-sectional and longitudinal study could reveal a better understanding of whether entrepreneurial intentions could turn into a behavior. Second, the generalizability of the current findings may be limited. As is often the case, this study was conducted within one country. Our framework provides a meaningful understanding of the topic, and future research could survey a more diverse sample that comes from different cultures and countries. Third, since cultural disparities might be responsible for the non-significant relationship between attitudes toward entrepreneurship and entrepreneurial intentions, future studies could also investigate whether there are potential specific motives and advantages for university students to start a new business in China, taking government policy and culture context into consideration. Future research might reflect on the other entrepreneurial aspects, e.g., the role of business incubators and entrepreneurship development context using NESE as a mediator. In addition, further research needs to identify the role of social networks as a mediating factor to explore the influence of entrepreneurship orientation on NEI.
Data availability statement
The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.
Ethics statement
The studies involving human participants were reviewed and approved by Zhaoqing University, Zhaoqing, Guangdong, China. The patients/participants provided their written informed consent to participate in this study.
Author contributions
SL and HJ proposed the research idea, analyzed the results, and wrote the manuscript. LS and MA carried out the methodology and extensively edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This work was supported by The 2019 Guangdong Higher Education Teaching reform project: Research on ways to deepen the Industry-education Integration and school-enterprise cooperation by local applied undergraduate colleges and universities and Guangdong Education Science and Technology Collaborative Innovation Center Project (No. 2019B110210001).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
The handling editor declared a past co-authorship with one of the author, HJ.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211. doi: 10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Al-Shammari, M., and Al Shammari, H. (2018). Biculturalism and entrepreneurship: an introductory research note (A). Int. J. Entrep. 22, 1–11.
Alvarez, S. A., and Barney, J. B. (2007). Discovery and creation: alternative theories of entrepreneurial action. Strateg. Entrep. J. 1, 11–26. doi: 10.1002/sej.4
Anwar, M. N., and Daniel, E. (2016). Entrepreneurial marketing in online businesses: the case of ethnic minority entrepreneurs in the UK. Qual. Mark. Res. 19, 310–338. doi: 10.1108/QMR-04-2015-0029
Ardichvili, A., Cardozo, R., and Ray, S. (2003). A theory of entrepreneurial opportunity identification and development. J. Bus. Ventur. 18, 105–123. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(01)00068-4
Asante, E. A., and Affum-Osei, E. (2019). Entrepreneurship as a career choice: the impact of locus of control on aspiring entrepreneurs’ opportunity recognition. J. Bus. Res. 98, 227–235. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.02.006
Asimakopoulos, G., Hernández, V., and Peña Miguel, J. (2019). Entrepreneurial intention of engineering students: the role of social norms and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Sustainability 11:4314. doi: 10.3390/su11164314
Ayed, T. L. (2020). Extending the debate over entrepreneurial education effectiveness: the case of a Saudi university. Educ. Train. 62, 805–823. doi: 10.1108/ET-12-2019-0273
Bagozzi, R. P., Baumgartner, J., and Yi, Y. (1989). An investigation into the role of intentions as mediators of the attitude-behavior relationship. J. Econ. Psychol. 10, 35–62. doi: 10.1016/0167-4870(89)90056-1
Bagozzi, R. P., and Yi, Y. (1988). On the evaluation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 16, 74-94.
Bazkiaei, H. A., Heng, L. H., Khan, N. U., Saufi, R. B. A., and Kasim, R. S. R. (2020). Do entrepreneurial education and big-five personality traits predict entrepreneurial intention among universities students? Cogent Bus. Manag. 7:1801217. doi: 10.1080/23311975.2020.1801217
Bergmann, H., Hundt, C., and Sternberg, R. (2016). What makes student entrepreneurs? On the relevance (and irrelevance) of the university and the regional context for student start-ups. Small Bus. Econ. 47, 53–76. doi: 10.1007/s11187-016-9700-6
Bird, G. (ed.). (1988). “An analysis of drawings on the international monetary fund by developing countries,” in Managing Global Money, (London: Palgrave Macmillan), 104–112. doi: 10.1007/978-1-349-09588-9_6
Brändle, L., Berger, E. S., Golla, S., and Kuckertz, A. (2018). I am what I am-how nascent entrepreneurs’ social identity affects their entrepreneurial self-efficacy. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 9, 17–23. doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2017.12.001
Brandt, M. J., and Proulx, T. (2016). Conceptual creep as a human (and scientific) goal. Psychol. Inq. 27, 18–23. doi: 10.1080/1047840X.2016.1109577
Cai, L., Murad, M., Ashraf, S. F., and Naz, S. (2021). Impact of dark tetrad personality traits on nascent entrepreneurial behavior: the mediating role of entrepreneurial intention. Front. Bus. Res. China 15:7. doi: 10.1186/s11782-021-00103-y
Chandra, Y., Tjiptono, F., and Setyawan, A. (2021). The promise of entrepreneurial passion to advance social entrepreneurship research. J. Bus. Ventur. Insights 16:e00270. doi: 10.1016/j.jbvi.2021.e00270
Chen, C. C., Greene, P. G., and Crick, A. (1998). Does entrepreneurial self-efficacy distinguish entrepreneurs from managers? J. Bus. Ventur. 13, 295–316. doi: 10.1016/S0883-9026(97)00029-3
Chen, Y., and Zhou, X. (2017). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and firms’ innovation behavior: the negative mediating role of social capital. Soc. Behav. Pers. 45, 1553–1562. doi: 10.2224/sbp.6734
Cho, Y., Robalino, D., and Watson, S. (2016). Supporting self-employment and small-scale entrepreneurship: potential programs to improve livelihoods for vulnerable workers. IZA J. Labor Policy 5:7. doi: 10.1186/s40173-016-0060-2
Ciampi, F., Demi, S., Magrini, A., Marzi, G., and Papa, A. (2021). Exploring the impact of big data analytics capabilities on business model innovation: the mediating role of entrepreneurial orientation. J. Bus. Res. 123, 1–13. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.09.023
Costa, S. F., Santos, S. C., Wach, D., and Caetano, A. (2018). Recognizing opportunities across campus: the effects of cognitive training and entrepreneurial passion on the business opportunity prototype. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56, 51–75. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12348
Debarliev, S., Janeska-Iliev, A., Stripeikis, O., and Zupan, B. (2020). What can education bring to entrepreneurship? Formal versus non-formal education. J. Small Bus. Manag. 60, 219–252. doi: 10.1080/00472778.2019.1700691
Drejer, I. (2004). Identifying innovation in surveys of services: a Schumpeterian perspective. Res. Policy 33, 551–562. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.07.004
Dy, A. M., Marlow, S., and Martin, L. (2017). A Web of opportunity or the same old story? Women digital entrepreneurs and intersectionality theory. Hum. Relat. 70, 286–311. doi: 10.1177/0018726716650730
Elliott, C., Mavriplis, C., and Anis, H. (2020). An entrepreneurship education and peer mentoring program for women in STEM: mentors’ experiences and perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intent. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 16, 43–67. doi: 10.1007/s11365-019-00624-2
Elliott, C., Mantler, J., and Huggins, J. (2021). Exploring the gendered entrepreneurial identity gap: implications for entrepreneurship education. Int. J. Gend. Entrep. 13, 50–74.
Entrialgo, M., and Iglesias, V. (2016). The moderating role of entrepreneurship education on the antecedents of entrepreneurial intention. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 12, 1209–1232. doi: 10.1007/s11365-016-0389-4
Etzkowitz, H., and Zhou, C. (2017). The triple helix: University-industry-government innovation and entrepreneurship. London: Routledge.
Fellnhofer, K., and Puumalainen, K. (2017). Can role models boost entrepreneurial attitudes? Int. J. Entrep. Innov. Manag. 21, 274–290. doi: 10.1504/IJEIM.2017.083476
Fuller, B., Liu, Y., Bajaba, S., Marler, L. E., and Pratt, J. (2018). Examining how the personality, self-efficacy, and anticipatory cognitions of potential entrepreneurs shape their entrepreneurial intentions. Pers. Individ. Dif. 125, 120–125. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2018.01.005
Galloway, L., and Brown, W. (2002). Entrepreneurship education at university: a driver in the creation of high growth firms? Educ. Train. 44, 398–405. doi: 10.1108/00400910210449231
Garavan, T. N., and O’Cinneide, B. (1994). Literature review of problems associated with entrepreneurship education and training programmes. J. Eur. Ind. Train. 18, 3–12. doi: 10.1108/03090599410068024
García-Vidal, G., Sánchez-Rodríguez, A., Pérez-Campdesuñer, R., and Martínez-Vivar, R. (2019). The impact of self-confidence, creativity and vision on leadership performance: perceptions at Ecuadorian SMEs owner-managers. Serbian J. Manage. 14, 315–325.
Ge, J., Stanley, L. J., Eddleston, K., and Kellermanns, F. W. (2017). Institutional deterioration and entrepreneurial investment: the role of political connections. J. Bus. Ventur. 32, 405–419. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.04.002
Gerbin, A., and Drnovsek, M. (2016). Determinants and public policy implications of academic-industry knowledge transfer in life sciences: a review and a conceptual framework. J. Technol. Transf. 41, 979–1076. doi: 10.1007/s10961-015-9457-0
Gianiodis, P. T., and Meek, W. R. (2020). Entrepreneurial education for the entrepreneurial university: a stakeholder perspective. J. Technol. Transf. 45, 1167–1195. doi: 10.1007/s10961-019-09742-z
Gibb, A. (2002). In pursuit of a new ‘enterprise’and ‘entrepreneurship’paradigm for learning: creative destruction, new values, new ways of doing things and new combinations of knowledge. Int. J. Manag. Rev. 4, 233–269. doi: 10.1111/1468-2370.00086
Guo, H., Tang, J., Su, Z., and Katz, J. A. (2017). Opportunity recognition and SME performance: the mediating effect of business model innovation. R D Manag. 47, 431–442. doi: 10.1111/radm.12219
Gur, F. A., and Mathias, B. D. (2021). Finding self among others: navigating the tensions between personal and social identity. Entrep. Theory Pract. 45, 1463–1495. doi: 10.1177/10422587211038109
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., and Mena, J. A. (2012). An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 40, 414–433. doi: 10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6
Hamzah, H., Yahya, Z., Sarip, A. G., and Mohd Adnan, Y. (2016). Impact of entrepreneurship education programme (EEP) on entrepreneurial intention of real estate graduates. Pac. Rim Prop. Res. J. 22, 17–29. doi: 10.1080/14445921.2016.1158897
Hartshorn, C., and Hannon, P. D. (2005). Paradoxes in entrepreneurship education: chalk and talk or chalk and cheese?: a case approach. Educ. Train. 47, 616–627. doi: 10.1108/00400910510633152
Henry, C., Hill, F., and Leitch, C. (2017). Entrepreneurship Education and Training: the Issue of Effectiveness: the Issue of Effectiveness. Abingdon: Routledge.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., and Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 43, 115–135. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Hsu, D. K., Burmeister-Lamp, K., Simmons, S. A., Foo, M. D., Hong, M. C., and Pipes, J. D. (2019). “I know I can, but I don’t fit”: perceived fit, self-efficacy, and entrepreneurial intention. J. Bus. Ventur. 34, 311–326. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.08.004
James, W. (1956). The will to Believe: and other Essays in Popular Philosophy, and Human Immortality, Vol. 291. Chelmsford, MA: Courier Corporation.
Jiang, H., Xiong, W., and Cao, Y. (2017). Research on the mechanism of entrepreneurial education quality, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention in social sciences, engineering and science education. EURASIA J. Math. Sci. Technol. Educ. 13, 3709–3721. doi: 10.12973/eurasia.2017.00754a
Jiatong, W., Murad, M., Bajun, F., Tufail, M. S., Mirza, F., and Rafiq, M. (2021a). Impact of entrepreneurial education, mindset, and creativity on entrepreneurial intention: mediating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Front. Psychol. 12:724440. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724440
Jiatong, W., Murad, M., Li, C., Gill, S. A., and Ashraf, S. F. (2021b). Linking cognitive flexibility to entrepreneurial alertness and entrepreneurial intention among medical students with the moderating role of entrepreneurial self-efficacy: a second-order moderated mediation model. PLoS One 16:e0259491. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0259491
Kang, Y. E., Kim, J. M., Joung, K. H., Lee, J. H., You, B. R., Choi, M. J., et al. (2016). The roles of adipokines, proinflammatory cytokines, and adipose tissue macrophages in obesity-associated insulin resistance in modest obesity and early metabolic dysfunction. PLoS One 11:e0154003. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154003
Karimi, S., Biemans, H. J., Lans, T., Aazami, M., and Mulder, M. (2016). Fostering students’ competence in identifying business opportunities in entrepreneurship education. Innov. Educ. Teach. Int. 53, 215–229. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.993419
Kierulff, H. E. (2005). Entrepreneurship education in Poland: findings from the field. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 15, 93–98. doi: 10.1002/hfm.20015
Kolvereid, L., and Moen, Ø. (1997). Entrepreneurship among business graduates: does a major in entrepreneurship make a difference? J. Eur. Ind. Train. 21, 154–160. doi: 10.1108/03090599710171404
Kraaijenbrink, J., Bos, G., and Groen, A. (2010). What do students think of the entrepreneurial support given by their universities? Int. J. Entrep. Small Bus. 9, 110–125. doi: 10.1504/IJESB.2010.029512
Krueger, N. F., and Carsrud, A. L. (1993). Entrepreneu1993). Entreprenrial intentions: applying the theory of planned behaviour. Entrep. Reg. Dev. 5, 315–330.
Krueger, N. (1993). The impact of prior entrepreneurial exposure on perceptions of new venture feasibility and desirability. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18, 5–21. doi: 10.1177/104225879301800101
Krueger, N. F. Jr., and Brazeal, D. V. (1994). Entrepreneurial potential and potential entrepreneurs. Entrep. Theory Pract. 18, 91–104. doi: 10.1177/104225879401800307
Kuckertz, A., Kollmann, T., Krell, P., and Stöckmann, C. (2017). Understanding, differentiating, and measuring opportunity recognition and opportunity exploitation. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 23, 78–97. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-12-2015-0290
Leiter, M. P. (1993). “Burnout as a developmental process: consideration of models,” in Professional Burnout: Recent Developments in Theory and Research, Vol. 237, eds W. B. Schaufeli, C. Maslach, and T. Marek (Abingdon: Taylor & Francis), 250. doi: 10.4324/9781315227979-18
Leonelli, S., Ceci, F., and Masciarelli, F. (2016). The importance of entrepreneurs’ traits in explaining start-ups’ innovativeness. Sinergie Ital. J. Manag. 34, 71–85.
Li, C., Murad, M., Shahzad, F., Khan, M. A. S., Ashraf, S. F., and Dogbe, C. S. K. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial behavior: role of entrepreneurial alertness, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and proactive personality. Front. Psychol. 11:1611. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01611
Li, X., and Liu, Y. (2019). Parent-grandparent coparenting relationship, maternal parenting self-efficacy, and young children’s social competence in Chinese urban families. J. Child Fam. Stud. 28, 1145–1153. doi: 10.1007/s10826-019-01346-3
Liguori, E. W., Bendickson, J. S., and McDowell, W. C. (2018). Revisiting entrepreneurial intentions: a social cognitive career theory approach. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 14, 67–78. doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0462-7
Lim, D. S., Oh, C. H., and De Clercq, D. (2016). Engagement in entrepreneurship in emerging economies: interactive effects of individual-level factors and institutional conditions. Int. Bus. Rev. 25, 933–945. doi: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2015.12.001
Liñán, F., and Chen, Y. W. (2009). Development and cross–cultural application of a specific instrument to measure entrepreneurial intentions. Entrep. Theory Pract. 33, 593–617. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6520.2009.00318.x
Liu, M., Gorgievski, M. J., Qi, J., and Paas, F. (2022). Perceived university support and entrepreneurial intentions: do different students benefit differently? Stud. Educ. Eval. 73:101150. doi: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2022.101150
Liu, X., Lin, C., Zhao, G., and Zhao, D. (2019). Research on the effects of entrepreneurial education and entrepreneurial self-efficacy on college students’ entrepreneurial intention. Front. Psychol. 10:869. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00869
Maresch, D., Harms, R., Kailer, N., and Wimmer-Wurm, B. (2016). The impact of entrepreneurship education on the entrepreneurial intention of students in science and engineering versus business studies university programs. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change 104, 172–179. doi: 10.1016/j.techfore.2015.11.006
Mary George, N., Parida, V., Lahti, T., and Wincent, J. (2016). A systematic literature review of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition: insights on influencing factors. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 12, 309–350. doi: 10.1007/s11365-014-0347-y
McGrath, R. G. (1999). Falling forward: real options reasoning and entrepreneurial failure. Acad. Manag. Rev. 24, 13–30. doi: 10.5465/amr.1999.1580438
Michaelides, M., and Benus, J. (2012). Are self-employment training programs effective? Evidence from project GATE. Labour Econ. 19, 695–705. doi: 10.1016/j.labeco.2012.04.004
Minai, M. S., Raza, S., Hashim, N. A., Zain, A. Y. M., and Tariq, T. A. (2018). Linking entrepreneurial education with firm performance through entrepreneurial competencies: a proposed conceptual framework. J. Entrep. Educ. 21, 1–9.
Moser, K. J., Tumasjan, A., and Welpe, I. M. (2017). Small but attractive: dimensions of new venture employer attractiveness and the moderating role of applicants’ entrepreneurial behaviors. J. Bus. Ventur. 32, 588–610. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2017.05.001
Mozahem, N. A., and Adlouni, R. O. (2021). Using entrepreneurial self-efficacy as an indirect measure of entrepreneurial education. Int. J. Manag. Educ. 19:100385. doi: 10.1016/j.ijme.2020.100385
Murnieks, C. Y., Cardon, M. S., and Haynie, J. M. (2020). Fueling the fire: examining identity centrality, affective interpersonal commitment and gender as drivers of entrepreneurial passion. J. Bus. Ventur. 35:105909. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2018.10.007
Mustafa, M. J., Hernandez, E., Mahon, C., and Chee, L. K. (2016). Entrepreneurial intentions of university students in an emerging economy: the influence of university support and proactive personality on students’ entrepreneurial intention. J. Entrep. Emerg. Econ. 8, 162–179. doi: 10.1108/JEEE-10-2015-0058
Nabi, G., Liñán, F., Fayolle, A., Krueger, N., and Walmsley, A. (2017). The impact of entrepreneurship education in higher education: a systematic review and research agenda. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 16, 277–299. doi: 10.5465/amle.2015.0026
Nabi, G., Walmsley, A., Liñán, F., Akhtar, I., and Neame, C. (2018). Does entrepreneurship education in the first year of higher education develop entrepreneurial intentions? The role of learning and inspiration. Stud. High. Educ. 43, 452–467. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2016.1177716
Naktiyok, A., Nur Karabey, C., and Caglar Gulluce, A. (2010). Entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: the Turkish case. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 6, 419–435. doi: 10.1007/s11365-009-0123-6
Nambisan, S., Siegel, D., and Kenney, M. (2018). On open innovation, platforms, and entrepreneurship. Strateg. Entrep. J. 12, 354–368. doi: 10.1002/sej.1300
Neneh, B. N. (2020). Entrepreneurial passion and entrepreneurial intention: the role of social support and entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Stud. High. Educ. 47, 587–603. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2020.1770716
Neto, R. D. C. A., Rodrigues, V. P., and Panzer, S. (2017). Exploring the relationship between entrepreneurial behavior and teachers’ job satisfaction. Teach. Teach. Educ. 63, 254–262. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2017.01.001
Nowiński, W., Haddoud, M. Y., Lančarič, D., Egerová, D., and Czeglédi, C. (2019). The impact of entrepreneurship education, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and gender on entrepreneurial intentions of university students in the Visegrad countries. Stud. High. Educ. 44, 361–379. doi: 10.1080/03075079.2017.1365359
Omer, W., and Aljaaidi, K. (2020). The association of entrepreneurial education and support with entrepreneurial intention at Northern Boarder University: the case of students from College of Business Administration. Entrep. Sustain. Issues 8, 555–572. doi: 10.9770/jesi.2020.8.1(39)
Peterman, N. E., and Kennedy, J. (2003). Enterprise education: influencing students’ perceptions of entrepreneurship. Entrep. Theory Pract. 28, 129–144. doi: 10.1046/j.1540-6520.2003.00035.x
Ploum, L., Blok, V., Lans, T., and Omta, O. (2018). Exploring the relation between individual moral antecedents and entrepreneurial opportunity recognition for sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 1582–1591. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.296
Qiao, X., and Hua, J. H. (2019). Effect of college students’ entrepreneurial self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intention: career adaptability as a mediating variable. Int. J. Educ. Methodol. 5, 305–313.
Ramos-Rodriguez, A. R., Medina-Garrido, J. A., Lorenzo-Gómez, J. D., and Ruiz-Navarro, J. (2010). What you know or who you know? The role of intellectual and social capital in opportunity recognition. Int. Small Bus. J. 28, 566–582. doi: 10.1177/0266242610369753
Rauch, A., and Hulsink, W. (2015). Putting entrepreneurship education where the intention to act lies: an investigation into the impact of entrepreneurship education on entrepreneurial behavior. Acad. Manag. Learn. Educ. 14, 187–204. doi: 10.5465/amle.2012.0293
Reid, S. W., Anglin, A. H., Baur, J. E., Short, J. C., and Buckley, M. R. (2018). Blazing new trails or opportunity lost? Evaluating research at the intersection of leadership and entrepreneurship. Leadersh. Q. 29, 150–164. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2017.11.005
Ronstadt, R. (1985). The educated entrepreneurs: a new era of entrepreneurial education is beginning. Am. J. Small Bus. 10, 7–23. doi: 10.1177/104225878501000102
Rosique-Blasco, M., Madrid-Guijarro, A., and García-Pérez-de-Lema, D. (2018). The effects of personal abilities and self-efficacy on entrepreneurial intentions. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 14, 1025–1052. doi: 10.1007/s11365-017-0469-0
Şahin, F., Karadağ, H., and Tuncer, B. (2019). Big five personality traits, entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: a configurational approach. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 25, 1188–1211. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-07-2018-0466
Sanoubar, N., Sarvari, R., and Jabarzadeh, Y. (2018). Internationalization of knowledge-based companies: the role of foreign market knowledge and international entrepreneurial opportunity recognition. J. Entrep. Dev. 11, 461–479.
Schwarz, E. J., Wdowiak, M. A., Almer-Jarz, D. A., and Breitenecker, R. J. (2009). The effects of attitudes and perceived environment conditions on students’ entrepreneurial intent. Educ. Train. 51, 272–291. doi: 10.1108/00400910910964566
Scott, J. M., Penaluna, A., and Thompson, J. L. (2016). A critical perspective on learning outcomes and the effectiveness of experiential approaches in entrepreneurship education. Educ. Train. 58, 82–93. doi: 10.1108/ET-06-2014-0063
Sequeira, J., Mueller, S. L., and McGee, J. E. (2007). The influence of social ties and self-efficacy in forming entrepreneurial intentions and motivating nascent behavior. J. Dev. Entrep. 12, 275–293. doi: 10.1142/S108494670700068X
Shamsudeen, K., Keat, O. Y., and Hassan, H. (2017). Entrepreneurial success within the process of opportunity recognition and exploitation: an expansion of entrepreneurial opportunity recognition model. Int. Rev. Manag. Mark. 7, 107–111.
Shane, S. A. (2003). A General Theory of Entrepreneurship: The Individual-Opportunity Nexus. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. doi: 10.4337/9781781007990
Shirokova, G., Osiyevskyy, O., and Bogatyreva, K. (2016). Exploring the intention-behavior link in student entrepreneurship: moderating effects of individual and environmental characteristics. Eur. Manage. J. 34, 386–399.
Solesvik, M. Z. (2017). A cross-national study of personal initiative as a mediator between self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intentions. J. East West Bus. 23, 215–237. doi: 10.1080/10669868.2017.1306821
Souitaris, V., Zerbinati, S., and Al-Laham, A. (2007). Do entrepreneurship programmes raise entrepreneurial intention of science and engineering students? The effect of learning, inspiration and resources. J. Bus. Ventur. 22, 566–591. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2006.05.002
Steger, M. F., Frazier, P., Oishi, S., and Kaler, M. (2006). The meaning in life questionnaire: assessing the presence of and search for meaning in life. J. Couns. Psychol. 53, 80–93. doi: 10.1037/0022-0167.53.1.80
Syed, I., Butler, J. C., Smith, R. M., and Cao, X. (2020). From entrepreneurial passion to entrepreneurial intentions: the role of entrepreneurial passion, innovativeness, and curiosity in driving entrepreneurial intentions. Pers. Individ. Dif. 157:109758. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2019.109758
Tarling, C., Jones, P., and Murphy, L. (2016). Influence of early exposure to family business experience on developing entrepreneurs. Educ. Train. 58, 733–750. doi: 10.1108/ET-03-2016-0050
Tran, A. T., and Von Korflesch, H. (2016). A conceptual model of social entrepreneurial intention based on the social cognitive career theory. Asia Pac. J. Innov. Entrep. 10, 17–38. doi: 10.1108/APJIE-12-2016-007
Travis, J., and Freeman, E. (2017). Predicting entrepreneurial intentions: incremental validity of proactive personality and entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a moderator. J. Entrep. Educ. 20, 45–57.
Tsai, K. H., Chang, H. C., and Peng, C. Y. (2016). Extending the link between entrepreneurial self-efficacy and intention: a moderated mediation model. Int. Entrep. Manag. J. 12, 445–463. doi: 10.1007/s11365-014-0351-2
Tumasjan, A., and Braun, R. (2012). In the eye of the beholder: how regulatory focus and self-efficacy interact in influencing opportunity recognition. J. Bus. Ventur. 27, 622–636. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusvent.2011.08.001
Turner, T., and Gianiodis, P. (2018). Entrepreneurship unleashed: understanding entrepreneurial education outside of the business school. J. Small Bus. Manag. 56, 131–149. doi: 10.1111/jsbm.12365
Urban, B., and Galawe, J. (2020). The mediating effect of self-efficacy on the relationship between moral judgement, empathy and social opportunity recognition in South Africa. Int. J. Entrep. Behav. Res. 26, 349–372. doi: 10.1108/IJEBR-05-2019-0271
Van der Zwan, P., Thurik, R., Verheul, I., and Hessels, J. (2016). Factors influencing the entrepreneurial engagement of opportunity and necessity entrepreneurs. Eurasian Bus. Rev. 6, 273–295. doi: 10.1007/s40821-016-0065-1
Wardana, L. W., Narmaditya, B. S., Wibowo, A., Mahendra, A. M., Wibowo, N. A., Harwida, G., et al. (2020). The impact of entrepreneurship education and students’ entrepreneurial mindset: the mediating role of attitude and self-efficacy. Heliyon 6:e04922. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2020.e04922
Willness, C., and Bruni-Bossio, V. (2017). The curriculum innovation canvas: a design thinking framework for the engaged educational entrepreneur. J. High. Educ. Outreach Engagem. 21, 134–164.
Wright, M., Siegel, D. S., and Mustar, P. (2017). An emerging ecosystem for student start-ups. J. Technol. Transf. 42, 909–922. doi: 10.1007/s10961-017-9558-z
Wu, J., Si, S., and Wu, X. (2016). Entrepreneurial finance and innovation: informal debt as an empirical case. Strateg. Entrep. J. 10, 257–273. doi: 10.1002/sej.1214
Yang, J. H. (2019). The effect of role model on entrepreneurial self-efficacy and entrepreneurial intention: focused on Korean and Chinese university students. Asia Pac. J. Bus. Ventur. Entrep. 14, 211–220.
Yang, X., Sun, S. L., and Zhao, X. (2019). Search and execution: examining the entrepreneurial cognitions behind the lean startup model. Small Bus. Econ. 52, 667–679.
Keywords: entrepreneurship support programs, meaning in life, nascent entrepreneurial intention, China, entrepreneurial self-efficacy, opportunity recognition
Citation: Liao S, Javed H, Sun L and Abbas M (2022) Influence of entrepreneurship support programs on nascent entrepreneurial intention among university students in China. Front. Psychol. 13:955591. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.955591
Received: 28 May 2022; Accepted: 24 June 2022;
Published: 22 July 2022.
Edited by:
Majid Murad, Jiangsu University, ChinaReviewed by:
Muhammad Nawaz Tunio, University of Klagenfurt, AustriaSimona Apostu, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, Romania
Copyright © 2022 Liao, Javed, Sun and Abbas. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Shiyan Liao, liaoshiyan7578@163.com; Hasnain Javed, drhassnain.javed@lcwu.edu.pk