ArticleBMC psychology2026
Good and bad: how university innovation support influences college students' innovative behavior.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In modern higher education, university innovation support is widely regarded as a key strategy for promoting students’ innovative behavior. However, existing studies mostly adhere to a “more is better” perspective, ignoring its potential negative effects and individual boundary conditions, and failing to fully explore the dual psychological mechanisms and individual differences underlying its role. Based on data from 534 questionnaires, this study uses Mplus 8.0 to explore the underlying mechanism between university innovation support and college students’ innovative behavior. Research findings: (1) University innovation support is positively related to college students’ innovative behavior; (2) Creative self-efficacy mediates the relationship between university innovation support and college students’ innovative behavior; (3) Psychological entitlement mediates the relationship between university innovation support and college students’ innovative behavior; (4) Creative self-efficacy and psychological entitlement serve as chain mediators in the relationship between university innovation support and college students’ innovative behavior; (5) Learning goal orientation moderates the relationship between university innovation support and college students’ innovative behavior, such that the positive relationship is stronger when learning goal orientation is high than when it is low. The conclusions of this study can provide important practical guidance for universities to optimize innovation support systems by balancing the intensity of support to avoid the cultivation of students’ psychological entitlement, balancing the rationality and pertinence of support, and, at the same time, paying attention to individual differences in students’ motivation to accurately stimulate college students’ innovative behavior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.