Entrepreneurial Education and Innovation Intentions Among University Students: A Structural Assessment of Opportunity Recognition, Psychological Capital, and Fear of Failure

Abstract

In academia, innovation intentions among students are a highly sought-after outcome due to their overarching positive impacts on performance and well-being, especially in the higher education context. This research addresses entrepreneurial education and its influence on innovation intentions across several universities in Beirut, Lebanon. The research also examines the indirect effects of opportunity recognition and psychological capital as mediators and fear of failure as a moderator. Through the lens of the theory of planned behavior, the stimulus-organism-response model, and the entrepreneurial event model, a survey was designed. A total of 263 samples were collected from the students of three universities in Beirut where the academic setting was English, and international students were present. Using Partial Least Squares—Structural Equation Modeling, the data was analyzed, and the hypotheses were supported. Results suggest that the learning environment in universities is a major determinant of innovative outcomes for students. However, implementation of entrepreneurial education alone cannot be as effective as it needs to be; it must be complemented by initiatives that enhance perceptions and internal capabilities of students to achieve innovation in their behaviors. This highlights the vitality of psychological capital and fear of failure in this context.

1. Introduction

Entrepreneurial education encompasses the learning environment in which students are equipped with the necessary skills and knowledge for identifying opportunities available, and an entrepreneurial mindset (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015). Such environments foster skill development, positive attitudes, and an awareness to seize available opportunities. Entrepreneurial education is a strategic practice in the higher education setting which can vastly improve the learning environment by simulating an entrepreneurial mindset among students while adequately preparing them for facing dynamic workplace markets. The positive influences of this educational setting have been reported in the literature, especially when it comes to positive intentions (e.g., entrepreneurship and innovation) among students (Küttim et al., 2014; Lv et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2021). While numerous studies have addressed the outcomes of an adequate educational model, its link with psychological capital and students’ abilities remains scarce (Wang et al., 2023), which further drives the conduct of this research. This has been linked to the notion that entrepreneurial education can provide students with necessary knowledge and skills while improving their attitudes and perceptions towards taking business initiatives (Mónico et al., 2021). Such educational environments can have a major impact on shaping students’ self-efficacy, motivation, and positive behavioral outcomes (Wang et al., 2021). Despite the available literature, the variability of human behavior with regard to institutional methods, psychological traits, and mechanisms remains in need of further analysis due to its complexity. This can be especially witnessed in the case of the Middle East region and particularly the Lebanese context, which is in need of empirical evidence that not only addresses the education sector of the country but also provides tangible and meaningful results that can be used by decision-makers (Haddoud et al., 2024).

Entrepreneurial education can have varying effectiveness levels when applied in different settings (Duong, 2022), which has been mostly investigated in Southeast Asia and Western regions (Wang et al., 2023). Therefore, the current research addresses a gap in the literature where studies addressing the higher education sector of the Middle Eastern region are relatively less (i.e., Lebanon). Studies have shown that self-efficacy can mediate the effectiveness of entrepreneurial education as students internalize their learning environment, which leads to manifestation of intentions, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., Anwar et al., 2022; Tian et al., 2022; Wang et al., 2023). However, these studies do not particularly examine the intricate mechanisms that link psychological capital and personal attributes of students to their innovation intentions. Thus, the current research focuses on the indirect effects of psychological capital, opportunity recognition, and fear of failure as psychological mechanisms that can predict students’ behavior, particularly when exposed to an entrepreneurial setting. This further addresses noted gaps in literature where indirect mechanisms (e.g., psychological capital and opportunity recognition) and latent variables (e.g., fear of failure), and boundary conditions are examined empirically and with modern techniques (Haddoud et al., 2024; Thoudam et al., 2023; Villanueva & Martins, 2022) are included in the model (see Figure 1) to contribute to the existing body of knowledge in this context. The contributions of this research can aid scholars and university decision-makers in implementing entrepreneurial education while improving our understanding of its influences on students’ mindset and behavioral outcomes.

Innovation intentions in this context can be described as a cognitive state of mind which leads to innovative behaviors (e.g., engaging in novel idea generation or actions) (Liñán & Chen, 2009). Opportunity recognition is regarded as the ability to identify viable options for entrepreneurial opportunities based on knowledge, skills, context, and alertness (Ardichvili et al., 2003). It requires a perception of emerging trends, an ability for problem-solving ability, and a solid understanding of the market. Psychological capital addresses a positive psychological state which contains optimism, hope, resilience, and self-efficacy (Luthans et al., 2006) for students, especially during their educational development programs. Fear of failure is often described as a negative emotional response to an expected failure which is a significant diminishing element for innovative behaviors (Conroy et al., 2002). This research argues that an adequate educational setting can yield innovative intentions among students, especially when their psychological capabilities are high, and their fears are confronted. In this sense, when students have a positive mindset and are provided with training, knowledge, and awareness regarding market and job prospects, they are more likely to develop positive intentions and exhibit innovation.

As this research explores the underlying psychological pathways to innovation intentions among students in higher education, it addresses the call for further studies on such contexts (e.g., Duong & Vu, 2024; Wang et al., 2023). Notably, these studies suggest that psychological capital can act as a crucial individual resource that increases the ability to use (perceived usefulness) the learning environment to form intentions that are desirable, feasible, and viable (Haddoud et al., 2024). In contrast, fear of failure can be a barrier to students’ creativity, passion, and innovation in the entrepreneurial academic setting, leading to discouragement from initiative ventures (Chapman & Phillips, 2022; Thoudam et al., 2023). The recent studies in literature tend to examine the performance outcomes whether on an institutional or individual basis, leaving a gap that is addressed in this research. It has been noted that while entrepreneurial educational settings can be determinants of positive intentional and behavioral outcomes for students, the role and effects of students’ abilities (recognition of opportunity, psychological capital, and fear of failure) remain underexplored as the majority of studies focus on other elements (e.g., organizational elements, interactions, and learning outcomes). The current research aims to expand the merits of this stream of research by integrating a structural framework that accounts for both institutional and individual influences on innovation intentions among university students in Lebanon which faces several visible educational limitations (economic, political, and technological) (Ben Hassen, 2024). In this respect, the study operationalizes the variables into their components to ensure a solid interpretation of the results obtained, contributing to the entrepreneurial aspect of academia.

Following what was noted, this research endeavors to extend the geographic boundaries of the literature by examining the aforementioned factors among the universities of Beirut, Lebanon. Previous studies have not directly examined what is proposed in the current model (see Figure 1), leaving a gap in the discourse of modern educational models’ effectiveness in defining students’ intentions—shaping their behavior towards future careers and prospects. It has been noted that in the region of the Middle East (Aljuwaiber, 2021; Bodolica et al., 2021; Duong & Vu, 2024) and particularly in Lebanon (Dabbous & Boustani, 2023; Toufaily & Bou Zakhem, 2024) such topics remain underexplored, which further drives the conduct of this study as the current literature lacks sufficient data when it comes to entrepreneurial education models and the intricate psychological prowess of students that determines their intentional and behavioral outcomes. These considerations are to ensure contributions are made to the discourse regarding entrepreneurial education models in regions with institutional or structural limitations (i.e., Lebanon). Arguably, entrepreneurial education models can aid teachers in terms of having more engaged and motivated students, as the curriculum and faculty initiatives align with this strategy. In the following sections, the theoretical framework of the study, hypotheses, research methodology, measures, analyses, and discussions on the results are provided, respectively. The research is concluded by highlighting theoretical and practical implications while showcasing its limitations and avenues of exploration for future studies.

2. Theory and Hypothesis Development

2.1. Theoretical Framework

Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) (Ajzen, 1991) provides a premise for explaining how human actions are influenced by three distinctive components namely, attitudes toward behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. The combination of these components can shape the intention of an individual (innovation in the current case), which is the antecedent of actual behavior (action). TPB relates to the entrepreneurial context in the educational setting as students who perceive an entrepreneurial education environment can develop positive emotions (attitude). This is further complemented by a belief that peers, and other members (e.g., academic staff) are in favor of the entrepreneurial environment and subsequent actions (subjective norms), while having a sense of engaging in innovative behavior (perceived control). According to the literature, TPB components are under the influence of the quality of the higher education entrepreneurship settings (Ma et al., 2020). Intentions (i.e., innovation) are formed through TPB constructs among university students, and the supportive mechanisms of the education setting are key for driving positive outcomes (Su et al., 2021). TPB has been commonly used by scholars from various disciplines (e.g., nursing) where entrepreneurial intentions were found to be linked to self-efficacy (Lim et al., 2021). TPB is thus relevant for addressing innovation intentions among university students as the educational setting integrates personal, and contextual factors (Tsordia & Papadimitriou, 2015; Lihua, 2022). This research argues that entrepreneurial education can positively influence perceptions of control over the execution of innovation as they are equipped with a relevant mindset. This is while opportunity recognition and psychological capital can act as internal engines that support positive attitudes and self-confidence with regard to innovative intentions and subsequently, actions.

In addition to TPB, the current research embeds Stimulus-Organism-Response (S-O-R) theory (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974) as it pertains to various aspects of the variables and relationship under examination. In this sense, S-O-R is rooted in environmental psychology and provides an explanation for the effects of external stimuli on internal states (organism), which in turn leads to a behavioral response. In the context of current research, entrepreneurial education is the stimulus that consists of various inputs (e.g., curriculum and extra-curricular activities). In the same way, the organism aspect can be represented by internal psychological processes for students (i.e., motivation, self-efficacy, opportunity recognition), and the intentions or behavior that are yielded (i.e., innovation) are considered as the response. S-O-R theory is commonly used by scholars investigating entrepreneurial intentions, particularly in the education setting, where creativity and confidence were reported among students (Pham et al., 2024). The supportive mechanisms of a university act as a stimulus where students can have various social interactions that can trigger their engagement in evaluating entrepreneurial and innovative actions (Duong, 2023; Jia et al., 2022). This research benefits from embedding the S-O-R theory to understand how an adequate entrepreneurial learning environment can initiate positive psychological responses among students, leading to their psychological resilience and ability to recognize opportunities. Contextual stressors can be transformed into innovative intentions when external factors effectively impact students’ perceptions (Çera et al., 2022). It has been reported that when students possess certain skills—stimulus (e.g., ICT), it can influence creativity (organism) that leads to the exhibition of entrepreneurial and innovative behaviors (Duong et al., 2024; Faiz Rasool et al., 2024; Jia et al., 2022). Through this lens, a better understanding of educational environments’ influence on innovation intentions can be gained as cognitive and affective processes for students are activated in a dynamic manner. This provides a complementary premise to the more static TPB model (Lihua, 2022).

Lastly, the Entrepreneurial Event Model (EEM) (Shapero & Sokol, 1982) is used in this research which suggests that entrepreneurial intentions and behaviors are derived from a process of shaping intention that is affected by perceived desirability, perceived feasibility, and the happening of the event. In the context of this research, an entrepreneurial education setting can arguably establish/trigger an environment that is desirable and feasible for students to be immersed in an engaging educational atmosphere. This can be a space where university students can perceive innovation as a desirable and achievable behavior which is supported by the educational environment. Innovative models applied in the education sector (i.e., entrepreneurial) can act as triggers for students to align their mindset, especially when faced with interactive and real-life scenarios (Čapienė & Ragauskaitė, 2017). Studies have shown that the inclusion of EEM in the curriculum can enhance the experience of students and simulate events that can trigger entrepreneurial, creative, and innovative intentions and behaviors (e.g., Alhaji et al., 2022; Boldureanu et al., 2020). Entrepreneurial models in education can reinforce the perception of feasibility to innovate as well as act upon opportunities (Boldureanu et al., 2020). Higher education environments can simulate triggering events (e.g., competition, entrepreneurship workshops, failure labs, and pitching training) which push the students towards active engagement from their intentions (Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2022).

In this research, psychological capital has a positive influence on perceived feasibility. This is while opportunity recognition can improve the perception of desirability. In contrast, fear of failure can prevent students from obtaining achievements even when they are competent. In a structured educational setting, such components integrate EEM to explain the mechanisms with which educational initiatives (i.e., entrepreneurial) can guide the psychological processes of students to form innovative intentions, supported by cognitive and emotional stimuli. Therefore, EEM accounts for situational and emotional elements that can improve entrepreneurial thinking in dynamic environments (e.g., universities). Moreover, the S-O-R model provides the necessary context for understanding how an external stimulus can trigger desirable responses from organisms (Pham et al., 2024) which further aligns the current theoretical framework with the premises of EE in the current contextual setting. As students can be influenced by a variety of elements in the education environment (university), the alignment of these theories establishes a new perspective for examining the development of innovation intentions. Notably, TBP further provides a more rational and rigid theoretical framework in this context as it pertains to the link between attitudes and behavior, norms and values, and the perception of control (Ma et al., 2020). This structure provides a solid foundation for EE and S-O-R which are more dynamic comparatively. Thus, there are no redundant aspects among these theories but rather a complementary link that can contribute to the current understanding of the subject matter.

2.2. Entrepreneurial Education and Innovation Intentions

Entrepreneurial Education (EE) is a setting, in which innovation, creativity, and entrepreneurial initiatives are encouraged, which can be highly visible when applied in the higher education context (Wang et al., 2021). Cognitive, attitudinal, and behavioral aspects of students are addressed under the EE framework which can drive positive intentional and behavioral outcomes (Küttim et al., 2014; Lv et al., 2021). As EE encompasses the learning process of students, the practices of faculty become supportive and aligned with an entrepreneurial mindset, further promoting the generation and expression of innovation. EE has the tools to provide a comprehensive knowledge of business to students while tending to their psychological (i.e., cognitive and affective) needs which directly affects their intentions (Haddoud et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023). In this research, EE is comprised of three distinct characteristics that are namely, knowledge and skills, attitude change, and perceived usefulness which reflect the influences of a strategic learning initiative on students’ intentions (Fayolle & Gailly, 2015). This dimensionality enables this study to address pedagogical elements that can improve the experience of students by introducing modern modules, workshops, and training programs. TPB states that intentions are primary antecedents of behavior and are under the influence of subjective norms, perceived behavioral control, and attitudes of an individual (Ajzen, 1991). This reinforces the notion that EE with its components (i.e., knowledge and skills, attitude change, and perceived usefulness) can yield innovation among students by improving their self-efficacy, risk-taking, and a positive mindset for entrepreneurship (Ma et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2023). EE has also been shown to have increased innovation and engagement of students in Portugal (Mónico et al., 2021). It can be asserted that entrepreneurship-centric faculties can foster an atmosphere where students can develop innovation intentions.

Students’ cognitive state can predict their innovative behaviors which are the manifestation of their intent regarding engaging in new and viable ideas or actions (Liñán & Chen, 2009). Referring to the premises of the S-O-R model (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974), EE can be considered as a stimulus which affects the internal attitudes and cognition of students as organisms. In turn, this results in a behavioral intention as a response to the educational setting encouraging innovation and entrepreneurship (Çera et al., 2022; Duong, 2023; Duong et al., 2024). This is further in line with the previously noted linkage between EE and innovation intentions of university students as their innovation intentions are the response to the EE and its influences on their internal cognition and emotions as stimulus and organism elements, respectively. Psychological readiness achieved by EE under this premise can manifest itself as engagement in, and exhibition of innovative intentions. Similarly, the EEM model developed by Shapero and Sokol (1982) explains how perceived desirability and feasibility of entrepreneurial actions can trigger intent among students. EE can be inherently aligned with EEM frameworks to provide events that drive positive intentions with regard to the strategic vision of the university (e.g., innovation). Under this theoretical setting, and the worldwide shift towards innovation, students can have a better chance in their future careers. According to Duong (2022), EE can have varying levels of influence as it is context-specific, which may have different exposure and strategic implementation levels. However, it can be stated that EE can facilitate critical thinking by delivering skills to students which can affect their attitudes and their perception of usefulness regarding innovation or entrepreneurial intent. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is proposed:

Hypothesis 1.

Entrepreneurial Education positively influences Innovation Intentions among university students.

2.3. Mediating Effect of Psychological Capital

Psychological Capital (hereafter PC) is comprised of four components namely, hope, optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy and is considered an individual’s psychological resource, which acts as an enabler (Luthans et al., 2006). In the current context, PC is operationalized as a bridging mechanism that better converts EE practices into positive intentions (i.e., innovation) for students. EE under the EEM framework can improve psychological assets via skill and knowledge deliverance, which also contributes to resilience, consistency, and taking initiative for obtaining desired goals (Haddoud et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023). Arguably, EE can influence hope (belief in success), optimism (tendency to attribute positive outcomes to internal factors), self-efficacy (belief in the ability to complete tasks and achieve goals), and resilience (adapting to change and returning from failure) (Luthans et al., 2006). TPB provides a lens through which the components of PC can be regarded as mechanisms that can aid EE as they improve perception of behavioral control (execution of innovation) and positive attitudes (development of innovation intent). The entrepreneurial model in education helps students in acquiring knowledge and further internalizing psychological factors which can empower their awareness and decision-making, leading to the formation of innovation intent (Anwar et al., 2022). Therefore, having a high level of PC can act as a bridge for EE models to further align the endeavors of the institution with those of the students. This is also in line with the premises of the S-O-R model where EE as a stimulus influences organisms’ PC, which then acts as a response trigger (innovation intentions) (Duong, 2023; Pham et al., 2024). As PC is an internal process, it can help the individual to translate a stimulus into the desired or aligned behavioral and intentional outcomes. Recent studies have supported the notion that PC as a psychological structure can influence intention (e.g., Duong & Vu, 2024; Haddoud et al., 2024). These studies reported a higher tendency to act on intentions for students with higher levels of PC, which is in line with the current arguments.

PC and its components (i.e., self-efficacy, hope, resilience, and optimism) are regarded as a mediating factor in the current model (see Figure 1) where the EE—Innovation Intention linkage is better explained when students possess a higher level of capital that entails their emotional, attitudinal, and behavioral factors. In other words, with PC, students can better understand the practices of EE which aims to provide them with knowledge of markets, trends, and business; positively change their attitude towards initiating ventures; and ensure useful outcomes in their future (Anwar et al., 2022; Pham et al., 2024). This internal capability can sustain the student’s drive towards innovation-related attitudes and behaviors. The components of PC address important psychological processes that are entailed within both TPB and S-O-R models. Perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy are linked under the premises of TPB. Moreover, both hope and optimism can be contributors to the formation of positive attitudinal outcomes (Lihua, 2022; Lim et al., 2021; Su et al., 2021). Furthermore, resilience is a match with the organism component which encompasses facilitation of stimuli (i.e., EE) processes in dynamic or failure circumstances (Duong et al., 2024; Faiz Rasool et al., 2024). The current study takes these delicate interconnections into account for developing the survey. Referring to the premises of EEM, PC can be influential in shaping students’ perceptions of the feasibility of innovation, especially as they gain more confidence in their abilities in the EE setting (Boldureanu et al., 2020; Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2022). These internal mechanisms can link what EE offers to the development of positive intentions among university students as they are made more aware of business ventures and entrepreneurial mindsets, motivating them to take novel actions while remaining resilient. Psychological resources such as PC can be vital for students as they provide mental power for facing uncertainty, academic stress, and changing labor environments. Students who possess PC can turn the knowledge gained in EE into meaningful plans and actions, leading to a strategic vision towards their goals. Accordingly, the following hypothesis is developed:

Hypothesis 2.

Psychological capital and its components mediate the relationship between Entrepreneurial Education and university students’ Innovation Intentions.

2.4. Mediating Effect of Opportunity Recognition

Opportunity Recognition (OR) is regarded as one’s capability to identify, examine, and make decisions on viable entrepreneurial or innovation projects in this context (Tian et al., 2022). This is a crucial ability in the EE environment as it can translate the framework of the institution into avenues of prosperity for students to improve and shape their future careers. This is categorized into pattern recognition (understanding emerging trends), market awareness (comprehending the mechanisms in different sectors and regions), and creative problem-solving (the will and the know-how to tackle existing or upcoming challenges) (Ardichvili et al., 2003). In the context of EEM (Čapienė & Ragauskaitė, 2017; Shapero & Sokol, 1982), perceptions of feasible and desirable outcomes of entrepreneurial actions are vital for shaping intentions of students (Alhaji et al., 2022). In an educational environment where entrepreneurship is encouraged and strategically embedded, students are trained to evaluate and be alert for changes in markets, technologies, and consumer needs (Mehdizadeh et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2022). This shows a foundation for the competency of evaluating opportunities, acting as a link between the effectiveness of EE and the intent of outcomes for innovation. OR is a core psychological element that within entrepreneurship education can drive students’ attitudes towards innovation (Wang et al., 2021), which aligns with the current contextual arguments.

The S-O-R model in this context can be employed to explain the practices of a faculty under the EE structure which as a stimulus, sharpens the capacities of students as organisms to recognize opportunities, ultimately shaping their intentional responses (i.e., innovation) (Duong, 2023; Çera et al., 2022). Such dynamics are more visible in higher education settings due to volatility and inclusion of various aspects (e.g., social, psychological, physical) of one’s life. Under the EE structure, faculties can facilitate access to networks, mentors, role models, and internships where students can be stimulated by real-life application of what they learn, contributing to their ability to recognize opportunities. As OR is contextual (Anwar et al., 2022; Mehdizadeh et al., 2021), it is important that alertness, trend understanding, and experiences are fostered in the educational setting as EE provides. Students can then have a more fluid and dynamic learning process, through which their willingness towards entrepreneurship and innovation is increased (Alhaji et al., 2022; Tian et al., 2022). This also aligns S-O-R and EEM theories in this context as when entrepreneurship is perceived as feasible and desirable—the value of a possible opportunity, and the belief in abilities enabling the individual to exploit the opportunity—it can trigger idea generation and manifest innovation intentions and actions. In this research, students address their OR in a self-reported manner that includes its dimensions (i.e., pattern recognition, market awareness, and creative problem-solving). In light of what was mentioned, the current study proposes the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3.

Opportunity Recognition has a mediating impact on the Entrepreneurial Education–Innovation Intentions relationship in higher education.

2.5. Moderating Effect of Fear of Failure

Fear of failure (FF) has been considered a hindering factor when it comes to entrepreneurial or innovative actions. When a failure is anticipated, individuals develop a negative emotional response which is regarded as FF (Conroy et al., 2002). The overall effort undertaken in the EE context is to give students confidence and increase their awareness and alertness for risk-taking, while enabling their psychological resources to face entrepreneurial settings. However, when individuals possess FF, a resistance towards engaging in innovative behaviors is developed which negates students’ intentions to avoid negative outcomes (Chapman & Phillips, 2022; Thoudam et al., 2023). Under the lens of TPB (Ajzen, 1991), attitudes and self-efficacy are vital for forming intentions of individuals. This is while FF as a negative affective factor can negate perceived behavioral control which leads to intention avoidance. This has been reported for students as when fear is heightened, their willingness to act on their intentions is reduced, regardless of having EE as their learning environment (Villanueva & Martins, 2022). This implies a boundary condition that can alter the effectiveness of EE on shaping innovation intentions among university students, which is considered a diminishing moderator in the current model (see Figure 1).

This indirect influence of FF on intention development can be explained using the S-O-R model, where EE (stimulus) endeavors to trigger cognitive and emotional responses (organism). However, FF introduces a diminishing dynamic which hinders this internal process towards forming a positive response to the stimulus (Anwar et al., 2022; de Sousa-Filho et al., 2023). Therefore, FF weakens the link between the learning stimulus and the psychological response. When the fear is at high levels, the educational inputs are not converted into intent, implying a vital influence of a negative emotional boundary when compared to the positive ones (Yousaf et al., 2021). A recent study supported this dynamic by reporting that gender and FF moderated the formation of intention among university students (Duong & Vu, 2024). Similarly, reports show that students who exhibit creativity and motivation could show highly negative outcomes when their FF rises, implying the diminishing impact of fear on innovation intentions in an entrepreneurship-centered educational environment (Thoudam et al., 2023). Anxiety, self-doubt, risk aversion, and various other elements can instill fear in students, triggering FF as an emotional response and thus deterring them from innovative intents. Such strong psychological factors can negate the effectiveness of EE as they form an internal barrier to the intended empowerment and inspirational messages and practices. This can become so vivid to a point where even possession of skills and knowledge along with support structures cannot drive entrepreneurial and innovative intentions and behaviors (Chapman & Phillips, 2022). This requires a comprehensive program in EE that addresses fear, openly discusses failure, and provides support for risk management and innovation. In the academic setting, social judgment from peers, performance, and mental and physical resources are challenged, which further highlights the importance of understanding how EE can improve the learning environment to foster innovation through empowering students and meeting their needs for knowledge and competence. The current sample includes students from universities where institutional limitations exist. This can highlight how fear interacts with EE in determining innovation intentions in higher education in Lebanon, leading to the development of the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 4.

Fear of Failure moderates the relationship between Entrepreneurial Education and Innovation Intentions of university students in Lebanon.

Following the premises of the research, its theoretical setting and hypotheses, a causal model is proposed which is illustrated in Figure 1 below:

Figure 1. Research Model.

Figure 1. Research Model.

3. Research Design

3.1. Methodology and Approach

This study employs a deductive and quantitative design as it has been deemed appropriate for such studies (e.g., Lim et al., 2021; Su et al., 2021). A convenience sampling method was used to collect data from three universities in Beirut, Lebanon. This was deemed appropriate as the deans accepted the collection of data through their e-learning system. Therefore, the adequate approach was to ensure that any student willing to participate at their own time, could participate. The decision-makers of the university (i.e., deans and the ethical committee) were informed and necessary permissions were granted. This approach enables the researchers to test hypotheses based on available theoretical frameworks (Casula et al., 2021). Using G*Power software (version 3.1), the necessary sample size was calculated to be 210, which when combined with the recommended thresholds, reached 258 (Hair et al., 2017). To maintain the statistical power of 90%, effect size of 0.15 and α = 0.05, a total of 300 surveys were distributed through SMS (via WhatsApp or Telegram) from which 263 were returned and qualified for analysis (87.66% response rate) after removing the incomplete responses. The contacts or numbers were not shared as the deans were requested to create a group where survey information was shared and responses gathered. An unwritten consent form accompanied the survey in which participants were informed of the aims of the study along with ethical means of conduct (i.e., data confidentiality, anonymity, and voluntary participation) was shared in the group. The researcher had access to the group during the data collection process and provided information and answers when needed. Prior to this stage, a pilot test was deployed in a fourth university where items were tested for readability and adequacy as well as internal reliability. No dimensions or items were removed after the pilot test and the 20 samples were redacted from the final dataset under analysis. The universities chosen for the study had English instruction programs with international students. Thus, the survey was not translated.

3.2. Respondents’ Profile

In

Table 1. Demographics.

Age	Frequency	Percentage
18–21	86	39.3%
22–26	85	38.8%
27–30	32	14.6%
+30	16	7.3%
Gender
Male	118	53.9
Female	101	46.1
Education
Bachelor	152	69.4%
Masters	58	26.5%
PhD	9	4.1%

, the demographic items of the survey are reported where age, gender, and level of education are included. Notably, these variables are controlled in the current analysis as they can have impacts on the dependent variable (i.e., innovation intentions among students) (Alhaji et al., 2022; Ruiz-Rosa et al., 2022).

3.3. Measurements

The current survey includes a total of 40 questions addressing the variables in the proposed model (see Figure 1). All questions are designed in a 5-item Likert scale (1—strongly disagree to 5—strongly agree). Various reliable, commonly used, and valid measurement scales were derived from the existing literature which are as follows:

Entrepreneurial education and its dimensions (i.e., knowledge and skills, attitude change, and perceived usefulness) are measured by three questions for each dimension derived from the work of Fayolle and Gailly (2015). Psychological capital is measured by four distinct characteristics (self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) with a total of twelve questions taken from the work of Luthans et al. (2006). Innovation Intentions is regarded as unidimensional in this research and is addressed by five questions in the survey, developed from the work of Liñán and Chen (2009). Opportunity recognition is operationalized with three dimensions namely, pattern recognition, market awareness, and creative problem-solving, and is measured by three questions addressing each dimension (Ardichvili et al., 2003). Fear of failure is measured by five questions that were derived from the work of Conroy et al. (2002).

4. Analysis and Discussion

4.1. Analysis and Results

This research employs Smart-PLS software (v.4) to conduct Partial Least Squares—Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) technique on the data collected. This analytical technique is appropriate for the current model due to the existence of latent variables, a sample size that is limited, and a lack of concern for normal distribution (Hair et al., 2017). PLS-SEM consists of two stages, where the measurement model and the structural model are analyzed, respectively.

The results of the measurement model assessment are provided in the following tables. As can be seen from

Table 2. Measurement Model Assessment.

Factors	Dimensions	Indicators	Outer Loadings	Alpha	Rho A	CR	AVE
Fear of Failure	—	FF1	0.723	0.803	0.812	0.795	0.662
		FF2	0.734
		FF3	0.731
		FF4	0.742
		FF5	0.740
Innovation Intentions	—	II1	0.778	0.811	0.817	0.801	0.677
		II2	0.803
		II3	0.788
		II4	0.796
		II5	0.793
Opportunity Recognition	Pattern Recognition	OR1	0.721	0.806	0.811	0.811	0.679
		OR2	0.733
		OR3	0.741
	Market Awareness	OR4	0.717	0.788	0.769	0.786	0.680
		OR5	0.729
		OR6	0.723
	Creative Problem Solving	OR7	0.714	0.769	0.774	0.787	0.673
		OR8	0.722
		OR9	0.719
Psychological Capital	Self-efficacy	PC1	0.781	0.761	0.771	0.778	0.675
		PC2	0.743
		PC3	0.737
	Hope	PC4	0.766	0.772	0.801	0.787	0.701
		PC5	0.774
		PC6	0.775
	Optimism	PC7	0.762	0.769	0.789	0.775	0.671
		PC8	0.771
		PC9	0.764
	Resilience	PC10	0.773	0.792	0.793	0.782	0.692
		PC11	0.752
		PC12	0.761
Entrepreneurial Education	Knowledge and Skills	EE1	0.779	0.799	0.791	0.791	0.703
		EE2	0.803
		EE3	0.788
	Attitude Change	EE4	0.809	0.794	0.798	0.808	0.701
		EE5	0.793
		EE6	0.798
	Perceived Usefulness	EE7	0.811	0.813	0.807	0.810	0.711
		EE8	0.807
		EE9	0.796

, the measures show satisfactory thresholds as, the outer loadings, Rho A, alpha, and composite reliability are between 0.7 and 0.9 (Jöreskog, 1971; Diamantopoulos et al., 2012; Dijkstra & Henseler, 2015; Henseler et al., 2014; Hair et al., 2019). Moreover, the average variance extracted value (AVE) (>0.5) implies that convergent validity is satisfactory.

Convergent validity is also confirmed by the results in

Table 3. Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio (HTMT).

	PR	MA	CS	SE	HP	OP	RC	KS	AC	PU	FF
PR	-
MA	0.621	-
CS	0.581	0.633	-
SE	0.652	0.642	0.711	-
HP	0.633	0.639	0.652	0.662	-
OP	0.612	0.621	0.652	0.655	0.665	-
RC	0.673	0.649	0.618	0.644	0.621	0.671	-
KS	0.636	0.623	0.619	0.642	0.634	0.663	0.685	-
AC	0.591	0.586	0.603	0.599	0.613	0.642	0.644	0.660	-
PU	0.620	0.616	0.587	0.619	0.593	0.601	0.611	0.628	0.676	-
FF	0.582	0.591	0.610	0.5296	0.609	0.613	0.582	0.594	0.639	0.646	-
II	0.629	0.631	0.665	0.617	0.639	0.644	0.652	0.655	0.647	0.673	0.689

where the values of heterotrait-monotrait (HTMT) are below 0.85 (Hair et al., 2017; Henseler et al., 2015) which align with the values calculated for AVE (see Table 2).

The results in

Table 4. Reflective-Formative Construct Assessment.

Construct	Items	Convergent Validity	Weights	VIF	t-Statistics
Psychological Capital	Self-efficacy	0.714	0.336	1.811	3.025
	Hope		0.345	1.772	3.002
	Optimism		0.330	1.783	3.040
	Resilience		0.331	1.791	3.025
Opportunity Recognition	Pattern Recognition		0.328	1.790	3.101
	Market Awareness	0.710	0.329	1.787	3.088
	Creative problem-solving		0.330	1.776	3.105
Entrepreneurial Education	Knowledge and Skills		0.322	1.778	3.026
	Attitude Change	0.711	0.331	1.802	3.040
	Perceived Usefulness		0.329	1.769	3.033

state that the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) values are below the acceptable threshold of 3 (Henseler et al., 2009). This implies that there are no concerns regarding multicollinearity for the reflective variables of the research and their dimensionality.

The results presented in

Table 5. Structural Model Assessment.

Effects	Relations	β	t-Statistics	Ƒ2	Decision
Direct
H1	EE → II	0.343	4.428 **	0.103	Supported
Mediation
H2	EE → PC → II	0.307	2.804 *	0.105	Supported
H3	EE → OR → II	0.312	2.851 *	0.109	Supported
Moderation
H4	EE*FF → II	−0.318	−3.012 *	0.113	Supported
Control Variables
	Gender → II	0.114	2.014 *
	Age → II	0.123	2.032 *
	Education → II	0.127	2.041 *
R2PC = 0.33/Q2PC = 0.17 R2OR = 0.44/Q2OR = 0.28 R2II = 0.49/Q2II = 0.31 SRMR: 0.024; NFI: 0.923

* 0.05; ** 0.01.

show that the structural model has a good fit level, as both values of the Normal Fit Index (NFI) and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) are satisfactory (0.923 and 0.024, respectively). Similarly, R-square (predictive power) and Q-square (predictive relevance) show satisfactory values (Hair et al., 2019). The results show that the hypotheses have been supported.

4.2. Discussion

The first hypothesis is supported (β = 0.343, t = 4.428) which confirms that an entrepreneurial education environment in universities can foster innovation intentions among students as it pertains to their need for knowledge and skills, mindset and attitude, and their understanding of the value of what they learn (perceived usefulness). It has been noted that EE can improve students’ behavioral outcomes through the provision of support and awareness regarding entrepreneurship, leading to higher creativity and innovation (e.g., Duong et al., 2024; Haddoud et al., 2024; Wang et al., 2023) which aligns with the current findings. This suggests a similarity between Lebanese students and other regions which highlights the contributions of the research. Furthermore, universities in the country and the region of the Middle East can improve their learning environments to further encourage innovative outcomes. This finding contributes to the scarcity of studies investigating new educational dynamics across the higher education of Lebanon and the region, particularly when considering institutional and structural limitations (Dabbous & Boustani, 2023; Toufaily & Bou Zakhem, 2024). The noted similarity resonates with the existing literature as TPB theory supports the notion that intentions are driven by attitude, norms, and perceived behavioral control which under EE are enhanced through exposure to the benefits of entrepreneurial models, development of skills, and ability to spot viable opportunities. Similarly, under EE settings, students are equipped with knowledge which enhances their perceived behavioral control and further softens the transformation of EE efforts into actionable intentions, further showing consensus and expanding the current discourse (Lv et al., 2021; Wang et al., 2023). Cultivation of proactive and creative behaviors among students can also be achieved through EE under both S-O-R and EEM models as cognitive abilities—essential for academic performance—are designed to aid students in fostering an entrepreneurial mindset which thrives on innovation (Lihua, 2022; Pham et al., 2024). The context-specific setting of this research provides further evidence from Lebanese higher education (Haddoud et al., 2024), emphasizing the practical implementation of entrepreneurial pedagogical models in this sector to establish a path for long-term benefits for society through fostering innovation among its youth.

The second hypothesis is found to be statistically significant (β = 0.307, t = 2.804) suggesting that possession of psychological capital can better convert the effectiveness of educational settings (EE) to actual intentions and behaviors of students in the realm of innovation and creativity. All dimensions of psychological capital (i.e., self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and resilience) show significance in terms of mediating the EE-Innovation intention relationship. Universities in Lebanon can benefit from initiating mentoring and support workshops with the specific aim of enhancing students’ psychological capital and its components. These findings complement the current understanding in the literature (e.g., Anwar et al., 2022; Duong & Vu, 2024; Pham et al., 2024) by expanding the theoretical, contextual, and geographical borders of EE implementation and underlying psychological resources that can shape behavioral outcomes. In the dynamic environment of higher education, especially for Lebanon with its institutional limitations (Dabbous & Boustani, 2023; Toufaily & Bou Zakhem, 2024), a highly effective stimulus (EE) is required to specifically improve the psychological capabilities of students (organisms) with the aim of triggering innovation intentions among them (response), which aligns the current findings with the premises of the S-O-R model (Duong, 2023). EE initiatives under the scope of EEM are designed to provide knowledge, resilience, optimism, hope, and efficacy to students, which contribute to their psychological capital, rendering the translation of EE settings into innovative ideas more feasible. As faculty teachers under EE practices encourage and promote the previously noted elements, it also impacts attitudes, norms in the education environment, and perceived control, which show the relevance of the TPB model (Anwar et al., 2022; Duong & Vu, 2024). When students possess a high level of psychological capital, they are more likely to believe in their own skills (self-efficacy), be consistent towards their aims (hope), develop strategies to deal with setbacks (resilience), and have a positive view regarding their future (optimism). This yields innovation as it requires solution-finding and critical thinking to navigate (Pham et al., 2024). Therefore, the mediating role of psychological capital is visible in the results due to the notion that students are able to utilize the EE practices to have a supportive and engaging learning environment that enables innovation. Attending to students’ psychological well-being can have a major impact on the effectiveness of EE in the higher education setting of Lebanon, implying a critical strategic initiative that strengthens students’ mental prowess.

The third Hypothesis is supported as can be seen in Table 5 (β = 0.312, t = 2.851), which implies that opportunity recognition can link the practices and efforts of EE to the formation of innovative intentions among university students. When students are equipped with the knowledge that provides them with pattern recognition, market awareness, and the ability to solve problems creatively, they are more likely to develop an interest in entrepreneurship and innovation in their business ventures. The current results are in consensus with the existing literature (e.g., Anwar et al., 2022; Duong, 2023; Mehdizadeh et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2022) but also highlight the importance and relevance of embedding programs in the EE structure to improve students’ psychological capital, further nurturing innovation intentions. As an internal skill, recognition of opportunities through understanding patterns (existing and emerging), market dynamics, and problem-solving mindsets is crucial in determining students’ innovation intentions in Lebanese universities, and perhaps neighboring countries with similar social, political, and cultural challenges and settings. This further highlights the merits of the current research in terms of advancing the extant literature of entrepreneurial education and innovation outcomes among university students. As noted with regard to the previous hypothesis, EE provides an educational environment where students are provided with various resources (e.g., the ability to identify viable opportunities) which shows the importance of individual attributes in this context particularly regarding intentional outcomes. Therefore, specifically designed initiatives that deal with this aspect are vital for EE models as the EEM framework suggests (Alhaji et al., 2022). It also integrates the premises of TPB through the integration of effective practices that drive positive attitudes. EEM emphasizes generating feasible and desirable perceptions to help students develop cognitive prowess and critical understanding to face potential opportunities (Mehdizadeh et al., 2021). Therefore, the mediating role of opportunity recognition resonates with being exposed to real examples of market gaps, economic variations, potential opportunity evaluation, and different decision-making strategies. Such practices enable students to perceive and interpret information in a meaningful and novel manner, resulting in innovative outcomes. When students are equipped with this skill, they can effectively make decisions with a clear vision towards their aim (Çera et al., 2022; Duong, 2023; Tian et al., 2022). In contrast, an inability to recognize opportunities can hinder performance outcomes especially if theoretical understanding does not translate into actionable insights. This further exhibits the mediating effect of opportunity recognition as a bridge between EE and innovation intentions among higher education students.

The fourth Hypothesis shows the moderating (diminishing) influence of Fear of Failure on the linkage between EE and innovation intentions of university students (β = −0.318, t = −3.012). The diminishing effect of fear of failure has been reported across the literature (e.g., de Sousa-Filho et al., 2023; Duong & Vu, 2024; Thoudam et al., 2023) suggesting that the Middle Eastern students especially Lebanese show similar behavioral traits when faced with elevated levels of fear. This dampens the effects of EE as employees who have a heightened fear of failure can disregard the institutional support systems as well as diminish their own capabilities and skills. These findings suggest that universities can embed psychological support systems that directly address fear factors and antecedents as well as initiatives that improve resilience when facing failure or having self-doubt. The current findings not only showcase the importance of negative emotions (fear of failure) for students’ overall psychological state but also highlight how a comprehensive educational structure can provide the necessary means for students to face this crippling fear that can negatively impact their future. Fear interacts with the perception of students in the EE setting and reduces the effectiveness of the educational model (EEM), especially in the context of Lebanon with the noted socio-economic fragility which mentally emboldens the challenges students face. This also negatively impacts their attitude, perception of control, and understanding of norms under the TPB model (Thoudam et al., 2023). Despite the efforts undertaken in EE models to foster a positive mindset towards innovative actions, fear of failure acts as a major barrier that negates positive elements. When fear of failure is high, self-efficacy, hope, optimism, and other psychological aspects lose efficiency regardless of the skills and competencies of the student (Chapman & Phillips, 2022; Villanueva & Martins, 2022). EE endeavors to establish knowledge-based skills for students to foster innovation but fear as an underlying psychological factor can prevent students from exhibiting action as forming intentions towards risky decisions (de Sousa-Filho et al., 2023). It can be stated that fear of failure can prevent students from seeking novel pathways rendering the EE model ineffective as the potential loss is perceived as higher when compared to potential benefits (e.g., success of an innovative idea).

5. Conclusions

The current study provides empirical evidence supporting the notion that entrepreneurial education can foster innovation among students. However, it is highly essential that the fear of failure is addressed to dampen its negative effects on the mindset of university students. Within the entrepreneurial education format, faculty can develop practices that contribute to the psychological capital and opportunity recognition abilities of students, leading to a positive influence on their mental, social, and academic performance while providing them with resilience and awareness. Through the lens of embedded theories (i.e., the theory of planned behavior, stimulus-organism-response, and the entrepreneurial event model) the research confirms that simply implementing entrepreneurial education in faculties does not suffice for achieving innovation intentions among students. Its effectiveness can be optimized through perceptions and internal capabilities which can act as enhancers or barriers for their intentions and behaviors. Thus, for an educational setting to enable students to thrive in innovative behaviors, the intricate balance of the psychological capacities of students should be taken into consideration.

6. Theoretical Implications

The current findings contribute to the extant literature on the integration of TPB, S-O-R, and EEM frameworks in a unified manner. The results suggest that TPB can be applied to both psychological capital and opportunity recognition in the context of the education sector and attitudinal and cognitive predictors of innovation intentions among students in higher education. This shows that the TPB can entail psychological variance and account for emotional responses in dynamic learning environments (Ajzen, 1991; Haddoud et al., 2024). This theory provides a comprehensive setting for linking institutional and individual factors addressing innovative outcomes in the education sector of Lebanon. While the application and relevance of TPB are clear in the existing literature, the current research focuses on the bridge between the psychological attributes of students and their intentional outcomes. Specifically, the importance of psychological capital as a mediating element that drives innovation intentions by encompassing the development of positive emotions, perceiving the support and alignment of peers, and a higher sense of engagement and control (Ma et al., 2020). The quality of higher education in Lebanon can be improved by the incorporation of such theoretical settings into the process of strategy definition for universities. Furthermore, TPB supports the notion that recognition of opportunities is essential when it comes to forming innovative intentions. The results show that when this specific skill is developed, students are more prone to developing a positive mindset towards entrepreneurship (Duong, 2023). Lastly, TPB also shows relevance when interacting with fear as a psychological barrier to the effectiveness or lack thereof of the existing cognitive abilities supported by EE.

Similarly, the S-O-R model supports the notion that the cognition and emotions of students (organism) are processed under the influence of entrepreneurial education (stimulus) which leads to the formation of innovative and creative intentions (Mehrabian & Russell, 1974; Mehdizadeh et al., 2021; Tian et al., 2022). This advances the findings of recent studies as noted throughout the research, highlighting the theoretical implications and contributions of this study. This model comprises three aspects namely, the EE setting (also linked to TPB and EEM) influences the learning environment of students as organisms which ultimately triggers responses in the form of innovation intentions. This theory shows relevance to the notion of bridging psychological capital and opportunity recognition to the noted intentional outcomes. EE programs can include specifically designed practices for students to develop their psychological capabilities and understanding of the current market trends and strategic decision-making (Duong et al., 2024; Su et al., 2021). Notably, this theory is also applicable to the higher education context of Lebanon by encompassing how the effectiveness of EE initiatives can be negated by the existence of fear as a mental obstacle, setting positive intentions and decisions back.

Considering the premises of EEM, entrepreneurial education as a model can provide more than mere educational content but encompass psychological activation processes triggered by the perceived benefits of the model (Alhaji et al., 2022; Boldureanu et al., 2020). The EEM shows that higher education students can greatly benefit from faculty-wide entrepreneurial strategies with the aim of achieving innovation and resilience. Furthermore, fear of failure as a boundary/barrier mechanism for students’ positive intentions and behaviors is modulated under this theoretical setting, which implies how educational practices in universities can foster lasting behavioral outcomes for students, sustaining an entrepreneurial mindset and innovative thinking. The EEM framework entails the importance of focusing on psychological capital and opportunity recognition as personal skills for students to face challenges and setbacks. Various event-based initiatives can be undertaken in the Lebanese universities to encourage engagement while tackling mental capabilities and challenges. Lastly, this theoretical combination shows that educational models act in a layered format and are bound to psychological states of students rather than a linear delivery-outcome process.

7. Practical Implications

University managers, deans, and administrative staff can benefit from the current findings by establishing programs in which students are offered actionable, strategic, and critical guidance which aligns the entrepreneurial setting of education with the long-term goals of students. This in turn can enhance their engagement, motivation, and positive emotions in their learning environment. Teachers can also emphasize entrepreneurial education aspects (providing knowledge and developing skills, changing attitudes, and improving perceived usefulness) by considering psychological capital and opportunity recognition of students. Their role can be more vivid due to their interactions with students on a personal level. This can also enhance the classroom environment as it goes beyond course content and standard curriculum. Support workshops, mentorship seminars, and skill-building training courses can improve students’ sense of self-efficacy, optimism, resilience, and hope especially when they are designed to drive innovation. Such initiatives can also work on personal capabilities of students by addressing psychological capital, opportunity recognition, and fear of failure in scenarios, workshops, or coping mechanisms to equip students with mental resources. Psychological support, social skills, motivational speeches, and customized training for developing different skills to understand trends, economic changes, and other practices such as strategic thinking, negotiation, statistical analysis, and data-driven approaches can be among these initiatives. In particular, practices that specifically address fear can be deployed to ensure that those students who even possess necessary skills are not faced with mental barriers that can hinder their education and future innovation. These educational environments will facilitate and hone students’ skills which are vital for facing real-life opportunities and challenges while developing a sustainable academic structure, especially in culturally or institutionally rigid structures. Setbacks and failures in particular should be addressed and emphasized, as they can diminish the benefits and dynamics of an entrepreneurial education setting.

8. Limitations and Recommendations

While the previously noted contributions justify the conduct of this research, there are limitations that have restrained its process. However, these limitations also provide pathways for future research that can be tackled by other scholars interested in similar contexts. Quantitative studies are limited by sample size and cross-sectional nature which limit representativeness and generalizability of the data. This can be addressed by studies in which qualitative or mixed methods are employed to provide an in-depth and comprehensive analysis of psychological dynamics. Similarly, future studies can employ a large sample size to test and attune the current findings. The interrelationship between the mediators and the moderators of the model is not examined in this research, which can be addressed in future studies. Literature can also benefit from systematic reviews and/or meta-analysis studies where an integrated and comparative understanding can be presented. Furthermore, Longitudinal studies can examine how students’ innovation intentions change before and after the implementation of certain entrepreneurial education practices to shed light on their effectiveness over time. The Regions of the Middle East and Northern Africa are underexplored when compared to Western and Southeast Asian regions, which can be addressed by scholars to further explore the current model in neighboring countries. While the current research benefits from a solid theoretical framework, other theories can be included in such contexts such as social exchange theory, organizational support theory, and leader-member exchange theory to examine teacher–student relationships. Cultural, social, and other demographic characteristics can be included in future models to build upon the current model and bypass its limitations.