Moving beyond the self: how mindset shapes self-transcendence experience among young nascent social entrepreneurs

Recent years have witnessed an increasing number of nascent social entrepreneurs who have pursued social business ventures (Yaden et al., 2017). This development, however, has been accompanied by strikingly high rates of failure among nascent entrepreneurs, with half of them ceasing to exist within the first five years (Chadwick and Raver, 2020). In addition, nearly one in three nascent entrepreneurs reported signs of stress, depression or anxiety within a period of 12 months of their new business ventures (Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, 2020). The recent Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (2025) highlights that despite 20% of adults worldwide engaging in start-up activities, the turbulent social and economic landscape has heightened the fear of failure, deterring many from launching ventures. In navigating early-stage challenges, entrepreneurs’ cognitive frames – whether they focus on “why” they are pursuing their venture or “how” they will execute it – can shape their experiences and outcomes. For instance, a young entrepreneur launching a social café to train underemployed youth may focus either on “why” the venture improves community wellbeing (purpose-driven thinking) or “how” to secure daily operations (task-focused thinking). This shift in mindset can influence not only their decision-making but also their sense of connection to a larger purpose, ultimately shaping the success and impact of their venture.

Self-transcendence experience, defined as “mental states marked by decreased self-salience and increased feelings of connectedness” (Yaden et al., 2017, p. 143), reflects an important individual-level affiliation-based fulfilment goal when individuals engage in entrepreneurial efforts aimed at addressing social challenges. Unlike achievement (competence)-based and identity (autonomy)-based fulfilment goals that focus on the self, affiliation (connectedness)-based fulfilment implies going beyond the self to connect with others (Angel et al., 2018; Patrick et al., 2007; Wach et al., 2016) (Appendix 1, Supplementary material). Transcendent experiences evoke strong positive emotions such as happiness and harmony (Schouten et al., 2007), thereby enhancing entrepreneurs’ sense of purpose and resilience. Recent findings also link self-transcendence to prosocial acts, such as giving and volunteering (Dunn et al., 2020). Altruism, central to transcendence, is particularly salient among young nascent entrepreneurs motivated to tackle social challenges (Kruse, 2019).

However, the initial stages of founding an enterprise are often the most challenging, with obstacles and psychological stress, which can undermine well-being and success (Marshall et al., 2020). Nonetheless, little is known about how self-transcendence experience might be altered as young, enterprising individuals engage in different cognitive mindsets or mental models during their entrepreneurial journey. Mindsets, also referred to as mental models, frames or sensemaking mechanisms, form the foundational lens through which individuals interpret and engage with the world (Ringberg et al., 2024). They determine which aspects of experience are emphasised and guide behaviour in context (Rydén et al., 2015). Extending this perspective to entrepreneurship, our research focuses on two fundamental entrepreneurial mindsets: the “why” mindset (i.e. the reasons for establishing a business venture) and the “how” mindset (i.e. the specific actions required to achieve their goals or objectives). During the early stages of a start-up, the “why” question often becomes more prominent as nascent entrepreneurs seek purpose and meaning. As they progress to subsequent stages, they are more likely to become focused on the “how” question – concentrating on the practicalities of running the business (Murnieks et al., 2020). This cognitive shift may shape how deeply they experience self-transcendence during their entrepreneurial journey.

Although recent research on entrepreneurial cognition examined the abstractness of entrepreneurial mindsets, such as thinking and thinking-about-doing mindsets (Chen et al., 2018), their relationship with entrepreneurial mental states, particularly self-transcendence experience, remains unexplored. Thinking reflects a high-level, abstract construal of the why mindset, while thinking-about-doing reflects a low-level, concrete construal of the how mindset (Chen et al., 2018). As transcendence is an important affiliation-based fulfilment goal (Yaden et al., 2017), it is important to understand how the entrepreneurial process of thinking (i.e. the why-mindset) and doing (i.e. the how-mindset) is connected to this entrepreneurial goal. Based on the foregoing discussion, the objectives of the current research are three-fold: (1) to explore how perceived self-transcendence differs across entrepreneurial mindsets (why vs how), (2) to understand the mechanism underpinning the effect of entrepreneurial mindsets (how vs why) on perceived transcendence and (3) to identify possible conditions under which this cognition-experience relationship might change. In addition, the research also provides exploratory insight into the relevance of self-transcendence for opportunity recognition and meaning in life, illustrating how self-transcendent experiences may shape entrepreneurial evaluation and a broader sense of purpose in early-stage and social entrepreneurship settings.

To address the first research objective, we ground our framework in construal level theory (CLT) (Trope and Liberman, 2010), which posits that abstract (high-level) and concrete (low-level) construal shape how individuals mentally represent events. By mapping CLT to different forms of entrepreneurial mindsets, we present a novel argument that enterprising individuals engaging with a high-level, more abstract why-mindset (as opposed to a low-level, more concrete how-mindset) are more constructively compatible with focusing on desirable long-term outcomes. As a result, they are more likely to experience a sense of transcending beyond the self.

To answer the second research objective, we introduce social value orientation (SVO) as the mediating mechanism connecting entrepreneurial cognition (why vs how mindsets) to self-transcendence experience. SVO refers to a continuum (proself–prosocial) that reflects the quantity of resources an individual is willing to sacrifice to benefit another (de la Cruz Jara et al., 2025; Murphy and Ackermann, 2014). Building on a synthesis of construal level theory and research on the activation of the pragmatic self by the why-mindset and the idealistic self by the how-mindset (Danziger et al., 2012), we propose that individuals who engage in the why-mindset (vs the how-mindset) are more prosocial (vs proself), which, in turn, enhances (vs diminishes) their experience of self-transcendence.

Finally, drawing on vested interest theory (Crano, 1983; Sivacek and Crano, 1982) to address the third objective, we posit that entrepreneurial self-efficacy moderates the mindset–transcendence link. Self-efficacy reflects belief in one’s capability to perform entrepreneurial tasks (Anker et al., 2010). We propose that when self-efficacy is low, those with a why-mindset experience greater transcendence than those with a how-mindset. When self-efficacy is high, there is no difference in levels of transcendence between the groups (Siegel et al., 2021). Across four experiments and one survey, we find consistent support for these predictions.

This study contributes to the entrepreneurship literature in three ways. Firstly, it advances understanding of entrepreneurial cognition by linking the why and how mindsets to self-transcendence, an affiliation-based fulfilment outcome that has been largely overlooked, answering recent calls for more research on the dynamics of entrepreneurship (Murnieks et al., 2020). Secondly, it elucidates the mechanism connecting cognition and transcendence by demonstrating the mediating role of SVO, revealing how cognitive abstraction influences prosocial motivation and emotional connectedness (Levenson et al., 2005; Yaden et al., 2017). Finally, it extends CLT and vested interest theory by identifying entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a boundary condition shaping when mindset differences matter for transcendence (Siegel et al., 2021). Self-efficacy can reduce the proximal focus of the how mindset, as individuals with greater self-efficacy are highly vested in their social enterprise and give more prominence to its future outcomes. Therefore, when self-efficacy is high, the differences in the effects on transcendence between the why- and how-mindsets are mitigated. The remainder of this paper presents the theories and hypotheses, followed by our research design, results and implications for entrepreneurship theory and practice. We conclude with the study’s limitations and directions for future research.

Self-transcendence is an important psychological concept that has been conceptualised in many ways (Garnelo-Gomez et al., 2022; Ye et al., 2024). A dominant research strand considers self-transcendence as a high-level value consisting of universalism and benevolence, which prioritises the welfare of others and equality (Schwartz, 1992). Studies about social entrepreneurship predominantly investigate and confirm the positive effect of self-transcendence values on entrepreneurship intention and attitudes (Kruse, 2019). Other schools of thought describe self-transcendence in different ways: a personal trait encompassing a tendency to identify oneself as an integral part of the universe (Janicke and Ramasubramanian, 2017), a dimension of a personal goal or motivation concerning contribution to the society and achievement of spiritual meaning (Costa Pinto et al., 2016), and a developmental capacity to go beyond the self and connect to the wider environment, past and present, to find meaning in life (Levenson et al., 2005). Whereas these research strands explore dispositional transcendence, a relatively under-researched area involves self-transcendence experience as transient mental states “of decreased self-salience and/or increased feelings of connectedness” that may change along a spectrum of intensity (Yaden et al., 2017, p. 143). Intense self-transcendence experiences include peak experiences, which refer to a strong feeling of connection with the universe (Maslow, 1964), an increase in one’s well-being (Mathes et al., 1982) and meaning in life (Magen, 1996), all of which are important to nascent entrepreneurs who engage in social-oriented businesses (Marshall et al., 2020).

Yaden et al. (2017) identify two key components of self-transcendence experience, including a reduction in self-salience and an increased sense of belonging with other people. Entrepreneurship in social contexts includes businesses motivated by consideration of others’ welfare and aims to achieve prosocial objectives using market mechanisms (Gray et al., 2024). As a social venture often requires engagement with the broader community to provide social benefits (Drencheva et al., 2021), a sense of connectedness is central to the affiliation-based fulfilment goal of entrepreneurs tackling social challenges. Furthermore, in the early stages of the business venture journey, nascent entrepreneurs are often less experienced and prone to failure due to emerging obstacles (Kollmann et al., 2017). Nascent social enterprising individuals face more challenges as they attempt to address troubling social problems while maintaining business viability (Elkington and Hartigan, 2008). As social objectives may be hard to achieve, exposure to barriers to social change may damage their determination and cause stress when they progress further into entrepreneurship (Anglin et al., 2018). Therefore, fostering self-transcendence experience as the transient mental states connected to well-being (Garcia-Romeu et al., 2015) is critical to this group of nascent entrepreneurs.

People have an innate desire for a meaningful existence (Becker, 1973). Self-transcendence experience is a desirable state of connectedness with people and objects in the environment beyond the self (Levenson et al., 2005; Yaden et al., 2017). Establishing a social business venture enables individuals to develop meaningful connections to something greater than themselves (e.g. their community). Extant literature, however, provides little theoretical guidance on addressing changes in self-transcendence experience when enterprising individuals traverse across different forms of entrepreneurial cognition. Entrepreneurial cognition is central to the new venture creation journey (Frederiks et al., 2019; Wood et al., 2021). Prior research has highlighted various aspects of entrepreneurial cognition, including mental images (Frederiks et al., 2019), the abstractness of entrepreneurial action (Chen et al., 2018), pattern recognition (Grégoire et al., 2010) and entrepreneurial imaginativeness (Kier and McMullen, 2020).

Central to this literature is the concept of mindsets, interchangeably described as mental models, which serve as the foundational lens through which individuals interpret and respond to their surroundings, representing an implicit understanding of reality (Ringberg et al., 2024). Acting as gatekeepers of attention and meaning, mindsets provide context-dependent structures that guide interpretation and decision-making in complex environments (Rydén et al., 2015).Table 2.1 in Appendix 2 (Supplementary material) summarises prior conceptualisations of entrepreneurial mindset, including their definitions, dimensions, operationalisation and outcomes. Building on this literature, we focus on the why mindset (i.e. considering the “why” questions, such as purposes, goals and overall meaning of the business) and the how mindset (i.e. considering the “how” questions to achieve business objectives, such as specific plans and activities) as the two essential unobservable cognitive mindsets that enterprising individuals engage in when starting up a new venture.

Construal-level theory (CLT) provides a compelling lens to illuminate the mindset-goal nexus in the social business venture journey. At its core, CLT (Trope and Liberman, 2010) postulates that people construe tasks and form their mental representations in terms of abstract ends (e.g. abstract, global and essential features) or concrete means (e.g. concrete, local and idiosyncratic features). Yang et al. (2011) extend this framework by introducing the concept of construal compatibility, which refers to the alignment between an individual’s mindset and the construal level of an object (e.g. product, message, brand) – an alignment that enhances persuasion and decision-making. Mindsets of enterprising individuals influence their business goals, which are aligned with the construal level associated with a given mindset, such that abstract mindsets tend to activate identity-based or purpose-driven goals, while concrete mindsets are more likely to elicit action-oriented or task-specific goals.

Drawing on these core premises of CLT, we propose that such construal levels guide two critical perception-to-action mindsets (i.e. the why mindset and the how mindset) that influence self-transcendence experience. In addition, construal compatibility arises when the level of abstraction in an enterprising individual’s mindset aligns with the framing of their entrepreneurship goal, thereby enhancing decision-making effectiveness (Yang et al., 2011). Particularly, we argue that the why mindset is high-level construal because it refers to the thinking form of action that involves such things as “setting desired end goals, formalizing personal values, predicting their potential, revisiting personal identity construction, and considering the impact of their actions on other people’s lives” (Chen et al., 2018,pp. 300-301). In contrast, the how mindset emphasises concrete means (e.g. idea-generating, modelling and planning) that form implementation intentions, thus representing low-level construal.

CLT research suggests that low-level construal promotes immersion in more proximal rewards, whereas high-level construal induces a focus on more valued but distal goals (Carnevale et al., 2015; Fujita, 2008). Therefore, we propose that engaging in the why mindset (high-level construal) allows individuals to envision the prospect of their social business venture in the more distant future, and hence, they are more likely to transcend the current self to become a part of something greater. In contrast, with the how mindset (low-level construal), individuals are more attentive to how their business venture takes place in a proximal future, thus increasing self-salience, which diminishes self-transcendence experience. Thus, we suggest:

Building on the observed mindset-transcendence linkage, it becomes essential to explore the underlying mechanisms, specifically the mediating role that SVO may play in translating mindsets into self-transcendence. SVO reflects the preferences for resource allocation between oneself and others (Murphy and Ackermann, 2014), capturing their inclination towards prosocial or proself behaviour. We continue to premise our theoretical explanation on CLT (Trope and Liberman, 2003) and the self-system, which is dynamic and involves multiple selves that arise under different circumstances (Markus and Nurius, 1986).

According to CLT, psychological distance is defined as “the extent of divergence from direct experience of me, here and now along the dimensions of time, space, social perspective or hypotheticality” (Liberman and Trope, 2014). An act such as thinking of a future goal is psychologically distant, as it is not part of one’s direct experience. We argue that psychological distance influences which version of the self becomes more salient – either the pragmatic self, a concrete and action-oriented self-view focused on immediate, instrumental concerns or the idealistic self, a value-oriented self-view centred on moral standards and long-term aspirations (Danziger et al., 2012). Both pragmatic self and idealistic self are important future-oriented self-concepts emerging under different social contexts and pertain to “how individuals think about their potential and about their future” (Markus and Nurius, 1986, p. 954). Individuals with an activated independent self-construal (vs interdependent self-construal) are more interested in maximising their own (i.e. proself) than the others’ outcome (i.e. prosocial) (Utz, 2004).

We argue that temporal proximity directs attention towards outcome-behaviour contingencies, thus activating the pragmatic self and encouraging practical, self-serving decisions (van Houwelingen et al., 2017). In contrast, contemplating the desired goals associated with the far future activates the idealistic self, which focuses more on “the core and most defining characteristics of the person” (Kivetz and Tyler, 2007, p. 196). Individuals who emphasise their sense of true self are more likely to value symbolic rewards via identity-based information such as social values, moral principles and self-conception (Lind and Tyler, 1988).

Consistent with CLT, high-level construal – associated with the “why” mindset – emphasise desirability and abstract, long-term end states, thus fostering a psychologically distant perspective. This orientation is more likely to activate the idealistic self, which prioritises prosocial goals and concern for others. Conversely, low-level construal – linked to the “how” mindset – focus on feasibility and short-term, concrete means, activating the pragmatic self and encouraging proself resource allocation (Hong and Lee, 2021). As a social venture that involves generating value for society (Gupta et al., 2020), SVO is central to entrepreneurs’ attitudes and behaviour. Specifically, prosocial individuals aim to maximise joint benefits or achieve fair distribution, while proself individuals aspire to maximise their benefits regardless of others (Au and Kwong, 2004; Bieleke et al., 2020). Since self-transcendence experience involves symbolic existence and connection beyond the self and can be achieved through an act of giving (Dunn et al., 2020), a higher level of SVO (i.e. being more prosocial) can increase the perception of transcendence. Therefore, we propose that SVO serves as a key psychological mechanism translating mindset into self-transcendence: the “why” mindset leads to greater psychological distance and idealistic self-activation, resulting in a stronger prosocial orientation (higher SVO), whereas the “how” mindset activates the pragmatic self, promoting more self-focused behaviour (lower SVO). In other words, the mindset shapes individuals’ internal self-representation and value orientation, which, in turn, influence their self-transcendence experience. Hence, we propose:

According to CLT, we highlight an apparent difference in self-transcendence experience between enterprising individuals engaging the why mindset and those with the how mindset. Since self-transcendence experience is related to psychological well-being, it is critical to remedy the decrease in self-transcendence experience when entrepreneurs enter the stage in which they are more likely to engage in the how mindset. To address this conundrum, we rely on the vested interest theory (Crano, 1983). Advocates of vested interest theory postulate that individuals are more likely to get involved in activities that are of personal interest, resulting in a consistent attitude–behaviour relationship (Sivacek and Crano, 1982). That is, vested individuals are more likely to behave in accordance with their attitudes.

One of the core elements of vested interest is self-efficacy, which refers to the extent to which an individual believes that they are capable of performing a specific action (Anker et al., 2010). Following Hsu et al. (2017), we conceptualise self-efficacy in the current study as one’s belief in competence regarding entrepreneurial tasks and activities to overcome challenges and establish a social business. Building upon the vested interest theory, we propose that entrepreneurial self-efficacy is a potential moderator of the relationship between entrepreneurial mindset and self-transcendence experience as the long-term goal of a social venture. As individuals have greater self-efficacy, they are more vested in their social enterprise and place greater emphasis on its consequences (Siegel et al., 2021), one of which is the self-transcendence experience. Therefore, we suggest that self-efficacy can reduce the proximal focus of the how mindset. In other words, the differential effects of the how and why mindsets on self-transcendence experience exist when self-efficacy is low, and the difference is mitigated when self-efficacy is high.

Further, stronger confidence in one’s entrepreneurial ability reduces the concerns about the feasibility of establishing a business that is present at a low-construal level (i.e. the how mindset). An increasing vested interest is also central to the consistency between an individual’s action and their belief in their social enterprise, which acts as a catalyst to social change (Gupta et al., 2020). As a result, they are less likely to concentrate on the conservation of resources, thereby resolving the resource trade-offs and increasing prosocial intention. Accordingly, we expect that when self-efficacy is low, there is a difference in SVO between the how and why mindsets on self-transcendence experience; however, this difference is offset when self-efficacy is high. Based on the foregoing discussion, we propose the following hypotheses:

• When the level of self-efficacy is low, SVO in the why mindset is higher than that in the how mindset.

• When the level of self-efficacy is high, there is no difference in SVO between the why mindset and the how mindset.

• When the level of self-efficacy is low, the experience in the why mindset is higher than that in the how mindset.

• When the level of self-efficacy is high, there is no difference in self-transcendence experience between the why mindset and the how mindset.

Our theoretical model is summarised in Figure 1.

We conducted four experiments and one survey to test the proposed hypotheses. Study 1 tested H1 (i.e. the effect of the why mindset vs the how mindset on self-transcendence experience). Using a different scenario about social businesses, Study 2 aimed to provide stronger empirical evidence for H1 and test the mediating role of SVO and the moderating role of self-efficacy (H2, H3 and H4). In both Studies 1 and 2, we used predetermined scenarios, which may not have been familiar to some participants. To address this limitation, Study 3a asked participants to draw on their own social business ideas to test all hypotheses.

Study 3b extended this approach in two important ways. Firstly, it strengthened the findings with a larger and more diverse sample. Secondly, it examined a set of downstream variables commonly discussed in entrepreneurship research to explore how self-transcendence relates to entrepreneurial evaluation and meaning-related well-being.

Prior research shows that an entrepreneurial mindset shapes entrepreneurial intention (e.g. Mokhtar and Zainuddin, 2011) and entrepreneurial activities (e.g. Kwapisz et al., 2022; Mathisen and Arnulf, 2013). Building on this literature, Study 3b introduced opportunity recognition as a key evaluative outcome to examine whether the mindset effects extend beyond self-transcendence. Drawing on research that conceptualises self-transcendence as a transient experiential state characterised by reduced self-salience and heightened connectedness to broader social goals (Levenson et al., 2005; Yaden et al., 2017), we explore how self-transcendence may function as a mediating pathway linking entrepreneurial mindset to how individuals interpret and recognise opportunities, particularly in early-stage and socially oriented venture contexts. Prior work suggests that self-transcendence can broaden attentional scope, enhance sensitivity to unmet social needs and foster openness to future possibilities (O’Dea et al., 2025), processes that are central to opportunity recognition (Ploum et al., 2018). In addition, Study 3b examines meaning in life as an indicator of meaning-related well-being, which has been closely linked to experiences of self-transcendence and purpose beyond the self (Van Tongeren et al., 2016; Yaden et al., 2017). This outcome is particularly relevant in social entrepreneurship settings, where venture engagement is often intertwined with identity, purpose and psychological fulfilment.

We focus on opportunity recognition and meaning in life as two illustrative downstream outcomes that are conceptually aligned with self-transcendence. We explore self-transcendence as an indirect mechanism through which the entrepreneurial mindset may influence evaluative interpretations of opportunity and a broader sense of purpose. These analyses are exploratory and are not intended as confirmatory tests of established outcome relationships. Finally, Study 3b explored alternative affective and experiential mechanisms, including flow and awe, to assess whether the influence of mindset and self-efficacy on self-transcendence experience could be explained through different pathways (Appendix 9, Supplementary material). Flow is a state of deep absorption in challenging tasks (Csikszentmihalyi and Csikzentmihaly, 1990), while awe is a self-transcendent emotion elicited by vast experiences that require cognitive adjustment (Keltner and Haidt, 2003).

Participants in Studies 1, 2 and 3a were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk), while those in Study 3b was recruited through Prolific. We used a between-subjects experimental design in Studies 1, 2, 3a and 3b to ensure clear cognitive separation between the “why” and “how” mindset conditions. This approach aligns with construal level theory, which posits that abstract (why) and concrete (how) thinking activate distinct mental representations (Trope and Liberman, 2010). A within-subjects design may introduce carryover effects or cognitive interference, undermining the distinctiveness of each mindset.

Finally, in Study 4, we surveyed potential nascent entrepreneurs to confirm the results of previous studies. Before the main studies, we conducted a pilot study with 71 participants recruited via Amazon Mechanical Turk to test the effectiveness of the mindset manipulation. Participants were randomly assigned to either a “why” or a “how” mindset condition and asked to read a scenario. Those in the “why” condition responded to a question focusing on the broader purpose of the business (e.g. “Why would your business have an impact on society?”), whereas those in the “how” condition answered a more concrete, procedural question (e.g. “How do you deliver the training to underemployed groups to improve their skills?”). Results showed that participants in the “why” mindset condition reported significantly more abstract thinking than those in the “how” mindset condition [M_why-mindset = 18.406,M_how-mindset = 15.513, t (69) = 2.430, p < 0.01], confirming the effectiveness of the manipulation. Appendix 10 (Supplementary material) provides a full overview of all studies, while Table 1 offers a brief summary of them.

Study 1 aims to test the effect of why mindset vs how mindset on the self-transcendence experience.

Participants and design: Following previous research (Edelman et al., 2016; Green, 2013), we defined young nascent entrepreneurs as individuals who were 35 years old or less who had the intention to start a business. Study 1 used a one-factor, two-level (why mindset vs how mindset) between-subjects design. We recruited 112 respondents on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk). We only accepted respondents 35 years of age or under with a 95% approval rate who resided in the USA and indicated an intention to start a business and excluded anyone who had completed the pilot test and those who failed the attention check (i.e. were instructed to select number 5). The percentage of female responses was 36.6%. A postgraduate degree was held by 16.1% and a bachelor’s degree by 76.8%.

Procedure: The participants were instructed to read a scenario about a social business (i.e. a restaurant building employment skills for underemployed groups; see Appendix 3, Supplementary material). We manipulated the mindset by asking them to think about and elaborate on either why they would start the business in the scenario (i.e. “why” mindset) or how to start the business (i.e. “how” mindset) (Freitas et al., 2004). This manipulation has commonly been performed to directly impact construal levels (Agrawal and Wan, 2009; Yan and Sengupta, 2011). Previous research has supported that repeatedly contemplating “why” stimulates more abstract thinking, whereas “how” evokes more concrete considerations. Following the why/how manipulation, the level of action construal was evaluated using the behaviour identification form (BIF) (Yan and Sengupta, 2011). BIF includes 25 questions. Each question requires respondents to choose between two descriptions of the same behaviour (e.g. making a list): one that involves higher-level construal pertaining to goals or “why” thinking (e.g. “getting organized”) and another that embraces lower-level construal pertaining to means or “how” considerations (e.g. “writing things down”).

Finally, we requested that participants report their self-transcendence experiences. We measured participants’ self-transcendence experience using three items adapted from Dunn et al. (2020) and Levenson et al. (2005), on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree): “I feel like by doing the business a part of me will live on forever”, “I feel like I am finding more joy in life by doing this business” and “I feel like I am making a lasting contribution to the community by doing this business”. Table 6.1 in Appendix 6 (Supplementary material) provides descriptive statistics, reliability and validity of the construct.

Manipulation check: We calculated a composite BIF score by summing up responses to all 25 questions in the BIF (for each question, 1 is assigned to more abstract descriptions and 0 to more concrete descriptions). An independent samples t-test revealed that participants in the why condition obtained a higher BIF score than those in the how condition [M_why-mindset = 18.024, M_how-mindset = 15.671, t (110) = 2.547, p < 0.05]. This confirmed that our manipulation of the mindset was successful.

Self-transcendence experience: We performed an independent samples t-test to ascertain any significant difference in self-transcendence experience between the why and how groups. It was revealed that participants in the why condition reported a higher level of transcendence than those in the how group [M_why-mindset = 4.413, M_how-mindset = 4.086, t (110) = 2.355, p < 0.05]. Therefore, H1 is confirmed. This underscores the role of cognitive framing in shaping early entrepreneurial experiences: the why mindset promotes abstract, purpose-driven thinking that enhances connectedness and meaning, whereas the how mindset focuses on concrete actions and feasibility, increasing self-focus and reducing transcendence.

Study 2 uses a different scenario to test the relationship between why and how mindsets and self-transcendence experience (see Appendix 3, Supplementary material). In addition, we also tested the psychological process underlying the predicted effect – the mediating role of SVO and the moderating role of self-efficacy.

Participants and design: Following previous research (Edelman et al., 2016; Green, 2013), we defined young nascent entrepreneurs as individuals who were 35 years old or less who had the intention to start a business. We used a one-factor, three-level (why, how mindsets and control) between-subjects design. We include the control condition to test the robustness of our manipulation of mindset. We recruited 359 participants on MTurk. We only accepted respondents 18–35 years of age with a 95% approval rate who resided in the USA and indicated an intention to start a business, and excluded anyone who had completed the pilot test and Study 1, and those who failed the attention check (i.e. were instructed to select “Strongly Agree”). A total of 44.3% of them were females. A total of 65.5% had a bachelor’s degree, and 25.9% had a postgraduate degree.

Procedure: Participants were asked to read a scenario about a social business (i.e. a social supermarket), which differed from the scenario used in Study 1. The same mindset manipulation from Study 1 was used (Freitas et al., 2004). The control group was asked to answer general questions. Following Yan and Sengupta (2011), the level of action construal was evaluated using the BIF, consisting of 25 questions (Yan and Sengupta, 2011).

We used the slider measure from Murphy et al. (2011) to measure SVO, as it is generally recommended to adopt a continuous measure instead of categories of SVO (Bakker and Dijkstra, 2021). Self-efficacy was measured using the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy continuous scale from Bacq and Alt (2018). Similar to Study 1, self-transcendence was measured with three items (Dunn et al., 2020; Levenson et al., 2005) on a five-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). See Appendix 4 (Supplementary material) for scales used in this study. Table 6.1 in Appendix 6 (Supplementary material) provides descriptive statistics, correlations, reliability and validity of all constructs.

We controlled for several variables used in studies on entrepreneurial research, including gender (Carr and Sequeira, 2007), family business (Carr and Sequeira, 2007), entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood (Zhao et al., 2005). The family business was measured by asking “Is there anyone in your family who has started or run a business?” The entrepreneurial experience was measured by the question: “Have you started or run any business?”. We used “When do you intend to start a business?” to measure entrepreneurship likelihood.

Manipulation check: We calculated a composite BIF score by totalling up responses to all 25 questions in the BIF (for each question, 1 is assigned to a more abstract description and 0 to a more concrete description). A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the BIF scores between the why mindset, how mindset and control groups. No significant difference was found between the control and how mindset group (M_control = 15.578, M_how-mindset = 14.778, p = 0.326) and between the control and why mindset group (M_control = 15.578, M_why-mindset = 16.553, p = 0.193). It was revealed that participants in the why mindset condition obtained a higher BIF score than those in the how mindset (M_why-mindset = 16.553, M_how-mindset = 14.778, p = 0.012). The levels of psychological distance were significantly different when participants engaged intensively in how and why mindsets. This confirmed that our manipulation of the mindset of entrepreneurship was successful.

Self-transcendence experience: We performed an independent samples t-test to test any significant difference in self-transcendence experience between the why and how mindset groups. It was revealed that participants in the why condition reported a higher level of transcendence than those in the how group [M_why = 4.301, M_how = 4.051, t (176.116) = 3.294, p < 0.01]. Therefore, H1 is confirmed.

SVO: We have proposed that the predicted effect of mindset (why mindset = −1; how mindset = 1) would be mediated by SVO. Participants in the why condition have a higher SVO level compared to their counterparts in the how condition [M_why-mindset = 24.118,M_how-mindset = 20.248, t (199) = 2.610, p = 0.010]. We conducted a mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2017). We included gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood as covariates. As expected, SVO was a significant predictor of self-transcendence experience (B = 0.012, p < 0.01). The indirect effect of entrepreneurial mindset on transcendence via SVO was significant (B = −0.023, SE = 0.011, 95% CI: −0.047 to −0.005). Therefore, SVO significantly mediated the relationship between mindset and self-transcendence experience, supporting H2.

Moderated mediation analysis: We have proposed that the predicted effect of entrepreneurial mindset on SVO and transcendence would be moderated by self-efficacy (H3 and H4, respectively). Moderation analysis was carried out using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 1 (Hayes, 2017). We included gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood as covariates. It revealed a significant interaction effect between self-efficacy and mindset on self-transcendence experience (B = 0.144, SE = 0.048, t = 3.000, p < 0.01), demonstrating that the differential effect between the why and how mindsets on self-transcendence experience was only significant when the level of self-efficacy was low (−1SD; B = −0.170, SE = 0.045, 95% CI: −0.259 to −0.081), or medium (mean) (B = −0.077, SE = 0.032, 95% CI: −0.140 to −0.015), and not when it was high (+1SD) (B = 0.016, SE = 0.044, 95% CI: −0.070 to 0.102).

This finding provides support for H3. We then conducted a moderated mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 8 (Hayes, 2017). This analysis examined the indirect effects of mindset (why mindset = −1, how mindset = 1), moderated by self-efficacy, on self-transcendence experience via SVO. We included gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood as covariates. The results are provided in Table 2. There was a significant index of moderated mediation (B = 0.024, SE = 0.015, 95% CI: 0.001–0.056), such that the indirect effect via SVO was significant when the self-efficacy was low (−1SD) (B = −0.032, SE = 0.016, 95% CI: −0.067 to −0.005) and medium (mean) (B = −0.017, SE = 0.009, 95% CI: −0.37 to −0.002) but not when the level of self-efficacy was high (+1SD) (B = −0.002, SE = 0.009, 95% CI: −0.021 to 0.016; see Table 8.1 in Appendix 8, Supplementary material). Thus, H4 was supported.

Regarding the control variables, only entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood had a significant impact on transcendence. None of the control variables significantly predicted SVO. It appears that entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood were associated with lower perceived self-transcendence.

Study 2 reinforces Study 1’s findings, confirming that a why mindset (vs how) enhances self-transcendence. It also shows that a why mindset fosters a stronger SVO, which mediates the link between mindset and self-transcendence. However, this positive effect disappears among individuals with high self-efficacy.

To eliminate biases that might exist in using a predetermined scenario, Study 3a required participants to use their own social business idea (see Appendix 3, Supplementary material). Study 3a aims to confirm the relationship between why and how mindsets and self-transcendence are experienced, as well as the psychological process underlying the predicted effect – the mediating role of SVO and moderating role of self-efficacy.

Participants and design: Following previous research (Edelman et al., 2016; Green, 2013), we define young nascent entrepreneurs as individuals who were 35 years old or less who had the intention to start a business. We used a 2 (mindset: why vs how) × 2 (self-efficacy: low vs high) between-subjects design. Participants were recruited from MTurk, restricted to US residents aged 18–35 with a 95% approval rate who indicated an intention to start a business. We excluded individuals who had participated in the pilot test or previous studies, those who failed the attention check (i.e. were instructed to select 60 for themselves and 50 for a social cause in an SVO question), and those who did not complete the manipulation tasks properly. After these exclusions, the final sample consisted of 153 participants, of whom 45.1% were female, 67.3% held a bachelor’s degree and 26.8% held a postgraduate degree.

Procedure: The participants were instructed to specify their idea about a social business. We used the same procedure in Study 2 to manipulate their mindset (Freitas et al., 2004). Two coders blind to experimental hypotheses coded participants’ open-ended answers to the “how” and “why” questions. The coders categorised each response according to whether it focused on why they would start the business or how to start the business and compared it with the condition the participant was allocated to. Any respondent who failed the assigned manipulation task was excluded from the analysis. To manipulate participant self-efficacy, we followed the deception approach suggested by Hsu et al. (2017, 2019). We asked participants to read a cover story and provide answers to seven questions adapted from McGee et al. (2009) about the case (Appendix 5, Supplementary material). These questions include identifying business opportunities (searching), creating a new product (planning), marketing strategy (planning), competition strategy (planning), choosing a supplier (planning), employment decisions (implementing – people) and financing decisions (implementing – finance). Next, participants viewed a deception preprogrammed message (positive or negative) that appeared on the screen, showing that their answers were evaluated and compared to those of expert entrepreneurs. They also received the results revealing their level of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Regardless of their answers, the high self-efficacy group received a positive message advising that their responses placed them in the top 5% under 35 years old nationwide who had the necessary capabilities to start a business. In contrast, the low self-efficacy group received a negative message advising them that, based on their answers, they were ranked in the bottom 30% and hence, may not be adequately prepared to start a business. Following Hsu et al. (2017, 2019), for manipulation checks, we asked “According to the test result, how confident would you be in your capability of successfully performing the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship?” (from 1 = Not at all confident to 5 = Extremely confident) to examine if the manipulation changed the participants’ perceptions of entrepreneurial self-efficacy. Similar to Study 2, we use the slider measure from Murphy et al. (2011) to measure SVO and three items adapted from Dunn et al. (2020) and Levenson et al. (2005) to measure self-transcendence. Table 6.1 in Appendix 6 (Supplementary material) provides descriptive statistics, correlations, reliability and validity of all constructs.

Manipulation check: We conducted an independent sample t-test to check our self-efficacy manipulation. It revealed that the participants in the high self-efficacy group reported significantly higher self-efficacy than those in the low self-efficacy group [M_low = 3.58, M_high = 3.94, t (80.114) = −2.128, p = 0.036], demonstrating that the manipulation of self-efficacy was successful.

Self-transcendence experience: We performed an independent samples t-test to discover if there was any significant difference in self-transcendence experience between the why and how mindset groups. We found that participants in the why condition reported a higher level of transcendence than those in the how group [M_why = 4.268, M_how = 3.911, t(151) = 4.328, p < 0.001]. Therefore, H1 is confirmed.

SVO: We have proposed that the predicted effect of mindset (why mindset = −1; how mindset = 1) would be mediated by SVO. Participants in the why condition have a higher SVO level compared to their counterparts in the how condition [M_why-mindset = 24.049,M_how-mindset = 17.738, t (149.640) = 4.141, p < 0.001]. We conducted a mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4 (Hayes, 2017) and included gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood as covariates. As expected, SVO was a significant predictor of self-transcendence experience (B = 0.012, p = 0.006). The indirect effect of entrepreneurial mindset on transcendence via SVO was significant (B = −0.037, SE = 0.015, 95% CI: −0.069 to −0.011). Therefore, SVO was a significant mediator in the relationship between mindset and self-transcendence experience, supporting H2.

Moderated mediation: We have proposed that the predicted effect of an entrepreneurial mindset on transcendence and SVO would be moderated by self-efficacy. We conducted a two-way ANOVA with mindset, self-efficacy and their interaction as independent variables and SVO as the dependent variable. The main effect of self-efficacy was insignificant [F(1,149) = 0.027, p = 0.870], whereas the main effect of mindset [F(1,149) = 24.562, p < 0.001] and interaction effect [F(1,149) = 13.729, p < 0.001] were significant. Simple effects pairwise comparisons confirmed that when self-efficacy was low, participants engaging in a why mindset had a significantly higher level of SVO than participants with a how mindset. However, such differences did not emerge when the self-efficacy level was high (Table 3). Thus, H3 was supported.

We conducted a two-way ANOVA with mindset, self-efficacy and their interaction as independent variables, and transcendence as the dependent variable. The main effect of self-efficacy [F(1,149) = 0.001, p = 0.975] was insignificant while the main effect of mindset [F(1,149) = 25.384, p < 0.001] and interaction effect [F(1,149) = 9.864, p = 0.002] were significant. Simple effects pairwise comparisons showed that under a low level of self-efficacy condition, participants with a why mindset possessed significantly higher levels of transcendence than participants with a how mindset. However, such differences did not emerge when the self-efficacy level was high (Table 3). Thus, H4 was supported.

We then conducted a moderated mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 8 (Hayes, 2017). The results are provided in Table 4. This analysis tested the indirect effects of mindset (why mindset = −1, how mindset = 1), moderated by self-efficacy, on self-transcendence experience via SVO. We also included gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood as control variables. The moderated mediation index was significant (B = 0.0496, SE = 0.0279, 95% CI: 0.007–0.113). It was revealed that the indirect effect via SVO was significant when the self-efficacy was low (B = −0.0584, SE = 0.028, 95% CI: −0.119 to −0.010) but not when the level of self-efficacy was high (B = −0.009, SE = 0.011, 95% CI: −0.032 to 0.011; see Table 8.1 in Appendix 8, Supplementary material). Regarding the control variables, none had a significant impact on SVO or perceived self-transcendence.

Overall, Study 3a confirms the mediating role of SVO and the moderating role of self-efficacy.

We replicated Study 3a with Study 3b to confirm our hypotheses using a larger sample size from a different platform. Participants were recruited from Prolific who were either currently running a business or intending to start one. Beyond replication, this study illustrates the potential relevance of self-transcendence for selected downstream outcomes that are conceptually aligned with self-transcendence and early stages of entrepreneurship. Specifically, we focus on opportunity recognition (Ploum et al., 2018) and meaning in life as an indicator of meaning-related well-being (Van Tongeren et al., 2016). These outcomes are examined as exploratory extensions, rather than as core or hypothesised consequences, to illustrate how self-transcendence may carry evaluative and psychological implications beyond the immediate cognitive–motivational processes examined in this study. Finally, we explored alternative mediating mechanisms of flow and awe, with detailed analyses reported in Appendix 9 (Supplementary material).

Participants and design: Similar to Study 3a, we used a 2 (mindset: why vs how) × 2 (self-efficacy: low vs high) between-subjects design. We recruited 400 participants from Prolific, aged 18–35, residing in the USA, with a 99% approval rate and an expressed intention to start a business. After excluding those who failed the attention check (i.e. were instructed to select 60 for themselves and 50 for a social cause in an SVO question), the final sample comprised 376 participants, of whom 47.6% were female.

Procedure: Participants were instructed to imagine starting a social business called Rethink Store (see Appendix 3, Supplementary material). We used the same procedure as in Study 2 to manipulate mindset, based on Freitas et al. (2004). To manipulate self-efficacy, we followed the same deception-based approach used in Study 3a (Hsu et al., 2017, 2019). As a manipulation check, participants were asked: “According to the test result, how confident would you be in your capability of successfully performing the various roles and tasks of entrepreneurship?” (1 = Not at all confident to 7 = Extremely confident) to assess whether the manipulation affected their perceived entrepreneurial self-efficacy. SVO was measured using the slider measure developed by Murphy et al. (2011). Self-transcendence experience was assessed using three items adapted from Dunn et al. (2020) to Levenson et al. (2005).

Furthermore, we included opportunity evaluation and meaning in life as an exploratory extension to examine how self-transcendence relates to key entrepreneurial outcomes. Opportunity evaluation was measured using seven items adapted from Keh et al. (2002), where participants rated their agreement with opportunity-related statements about their business idea on a seven-point Likert scale. Meaning in life was measured using the ten-item meaning in life questionnaire (Steger et al., 2006), which includes both the presence of meaning and the search for meaning. Table 6.1 in Appendix 6 (Supplementary material) provides descriptive statistics, correlations, reliability and validity of all constructs.

Manipulation check: We conducted an independent samples t-test to assess the effectiveness of the self-efficacy manipulation. Participants in the high self-efficacy condition reported significantly higher levels of self-efficacy than those in the low self-efficacy condition [M_low = 4.626, M_high = 5.652, t (295.544) = 7.933, p < 0.001], confirming that the manipulation of self-efficacy was successful.

Self-transcendence experience: We conducted an independent samples t-test to examine whether there was a significant difference in self-transcendence experience between the why and how mindset conditions. Results showed that participants in the why condition reported significantly higher levels of self-transcendence than those in the how condition [M_why = 5.991, M_how = 5.396, t(325.618) = 4.907, p < 0.001], supporting H1.

SVO: Participants in the why condition showed significantly higher SVO than those in the how condition [M_why-mindset = 24.720, M_how-mindset = 21.750, t (350.210) = 2.099, p = 0.035]. Mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 4 (with covariates: gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood) confirmed that SVO predicted self-transcendence (B = 0.025, p < 0.001). The indirect effect of the entrepreneurial mindset on transcendence via SVO was significant (B = −0.043, SE = 0.021, 95% CI: −0.089 to −0.007), supporting H2.

Moderated mediation analysis: A two-way ANOVA with mindset, self-efficacy and their interaction as predictors of SVO revealed a nonsignificant main effect of self-efficacy [F(1,372) = 0.610, p = 0.435], but significant effects for mindset [F(1,372) = 6.882, p = 0.009] and the interaction effect [F(1,149) = 19.519, p < 0.001]. Simple effects pairwise comparisons showed that under low self-efficacy, participants in the why mindset reported significantly higher SVO than those in the how mindset, whereas no significant difference emerged under high self-efficacy (Table 5). Therefore, H3 was supported.

We conducted a two-way ANOVA with mindset, self-efficacy and their interaction as predictors of transcendence. The main effects of self-efficacy [F(1,372) = 34.051, p < 0.001], mindset [F(1,372) = 34.362, p < 0.001] and the interaction effect [F(1,372) = 26.746, p < 0.001] were significant. Simple effects pairwise comparisons revealed that under low self-efficacy, participants in the why mindset reported significantly higher transcendence than those in the how mindset, while no significant difference was found under high self-efficacy (Table 5). Thus, H4 was supported.

We conducted a moderated mediation analysis using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 8 (Hayes, 2017) to test whether the indirect effect of why vs how mindset on self-transcendence via SVO was moderated by self-efficacy (Table 6). Gender, family business, entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood were included as controls. The moderated mediation index was significant (B = 0.124, SE = 0.044, 95% CI: 0.049–0.220). The indirect effect was significant under low self-efficacy (B = −0.103, SE = 0.035, 95% CI: −0.179 to −0.043), but not under high self-efficacy (B = 0.021, SE = 0.021, 95% CI: −0.017 to 0.066; see Table 8.1 in Appendix 8, Supplementary material).

Regarding the control variables, only entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial likelihood had a significant impact on SVO and transcendence, respectively. It appears that entrepreneurial experience positively influenced SVO, and entrepreneurial likelihood reduced perceived self-transcendence.

Additional analyses show that awe and flow do not function as mediators in the relationship between mindset and self-transcendence (Appendix 9, Supplementary material).

As an exploratory extension, we examined a set of downstream outcomes using Hayes’ PROCESS Model 84 (Hayes, 2017), including opportunity recognition and meaning in life (both the presence of meaning and the search for meaning). The analyses indicate that self-transcendence is positively associated with these outcomes and that the moderated serial mediation pathways through SVO and self-transcendence are statistically significant (Table 7). Specifically, self-transcendence is linked to opportunity recognition, suggesting that self-transcendent experiences may shape how individuals interpret and evaluate potential opportunities. Secondly, self-transcendence is also positively associated with meaning in life, indicating that self-transcendent experiences may contribute to individuals’ broader sense of purpose and psychological fulfilment. These findings suggest that self-transcendence may serve as an experiential pathway through which entrepreneurial mindsets influence opportunity evaluation and meaning in life.

As Studies 1, 2 and 3 used a sample of MTurk respondents, in Study 4, we surveyed potential nascent entrepreneurs who were entrepreneurship students to confirm the results of Studies 1, 2 and 3.

Participants and design: A sample of nascent entrepreneurs can be obtained from entrepreneurship training courses and events such as start-up competitions (Kollmann et al., 2017). Following Kollmann et al. (2017), we recruited students enrolled in entrepreneurship courses at a large metropolitan university. These courses were designed to provide students with the theoretical and practical knowledge and skills central to entrepreneurs. The course involves an understanding of the venture creation process and development of the business model and business plan, which are nascent entrepreneurial activities. Therefore, the participating students can be considered to be (early) nascent entrepreneurs (Kollmann et al., 2017). The survey link was emailed to participants. The participants were asked if they had any intention or plan to start their own business, and only those who indicated an intention to start a business were invited to participate. As a result, the final sample included a total of 210 responses. A total of 75% of the respondents were females. A total of 65.6% had a bachelor’s degree, and 4.6% had a postgraduate degree. A total of 65.1% did not have any entrepreneurial experiences, and 50.3% indicated that at least one person in their family had started or been running a business.

Measures: As for how vs why entrepreneurial mindset reflects the abstractness of a mindset, it was measured using the abstractness scale developed by Chen et al. (2018), in which a higher score reflects the why mindset, whereas a lower score reflects the how mindset (Appendix 7, Supplementary material). We selected the statements describing a single cognitive activity associated with why (two items) and how (one item) mindsets. As this is a composite variable, the raw scores for why and how mindsets were calculated using the sum of activities performed, each coded 0 or 1, and were scaled into two percentage-to-total-activities scores since each mindset has a different number of items. In addition, to determine the level of “abstractness”, we assigned more weights to the why category than the how category. In particular, the resulting equation used to calculate the abstractness is C_i = x₁*2 + x_2, where C_i is the overall composite score for the level of abstractness, i is for the ith participant and x₁ and x₂ are two percentage scores depicting why and how mindsets (Chen et al., 2018). The higher C_i is, the more abstract the mindset is, which means greater engagement in a why mindset. On the other hand, a lower score of C_i indicates greater engagement in a how mindset.

We used the slider measure from Murphy et al. (2011) to measure SVO. Self-efficacy was measured using the social entrepreneurial self-efficacy scale from Bacq and Alt (2018). Self-transcendence experience was measured using three items adapted from Dunn et al. (2020) and Levenson et al. (2005). We controlled for several variables used in studies on entrepreneurial research, including gender (Carr and Sequeira, 2007), family business (Carr and Sequeira, 2007), entrepreneurial experience and entrepreneurial intention (Zhao et al., 2005). The family business was measured by asking “Is there anyone in your family who has started or run a business?” The entrepreneurial experience was measured by the question: “Have you started or run any business?”. We used “How likely do you intend to start a new business within the next 12 months?” to measure entrepreneurship likelihood. See Appendix 3 (Supplementary material) for scales used in this study.

Reliability and discriminant validity: Table 5.1 in Appendix 5 (Supplementary material) provides descriptive statistics, correlations, reliability and validity of all constructs. The abstractness of the entrepreneurial mindset, SVO and transcendence were significantly correlated at p < 0.01, whereas the correlations between abstractness and self-efficacy and between self-efficacy and SVO were not significant. The correlations among the abstractness of the entrepreneurial mindset (abstractness) level, SVO, self-efficacy and transcendence ranged from 0.057 to 0.427. The abstractness of the entrepreneurial mindset (abstractness) level, SVO and transcendence were significantly correlated at p < 0.05, whereas the correlation between abstractness and self-efficacy was not significant. The fit indices for the confirmatory factor analysis indicate that the model fit the data well: χ² (13) = 18.223 (p = 0.149), χ²/df = 1.402; RMSEA = 0.035, CFI = 0.993 and TLI = 0.988. All AVEs were greater than 0.50 and larger than the squared correlations of the corresponding constructs, demonstrating discriminant validity (Fornell and Larcker, 1981).

Structural equation modelling was carried out to test all hypotheses. The fit indices for this structural model were: χ² (16) = 19.700 (p = 0.234), χ²/df = 1.231; RMSEA = 0.033, CFI = 0.984 and TLI = 0.946, suggesting a good fit between the model and the data. The model explains 39.8% of the variance in self-transcendence experience (R² = 0.398). The results are provided in Table 8. Overall, the abstractness of the entrepreneurial mindset was a significant predictor of SVO and transcendence, supporting H1. SVO had a significant effect on transcendence. The mediation effect of SVO was confirmed using the bootstrapping procedure with the bias-corrected confidence level of 95% and 10,000 bootstrap samples. The standardised indirect effect of the abstractness of entrepreneurial mindset on transcendence via SVO was significant (β = 0.022, p < 0.05). Therefore, H2 was supported.

Regarding the control variables, only gender and business experience had a significant impact on SVO and transcendence, respectively. It appears that females (vs males) were more likely to demonstrate an SVO, whereas those who had more entrepreneurial experience (versus those with less experience) perceived a greater level of transcendence.

Moderation analysis: To test the moderating effects, we mean-centred the independent variable (i.e. abstractness of entrepreneurial mindset) and the moderator (i.e. self-efficacy) and computed the interaction term (Dalal and Zickar, 2012). We included the interaction term in the structural model. It was found that the interaction term had a negative and significant effect on SVO (β = −0.151, p < 0.05) and transcendence (β = −0.173, p < 0.05). This shows that as self-efficacy increased, the differential effect of the abstractness of entrepreneurial mindset on both SVO and transcendence weakened (Figure 2), confirming H3 and H4. Overall, Study 4, using a sample of potential nascent entrepreneurs, supports the findings of Studies 1–3b. It shows that the abstractness of the entrepreneurial mindset predicts SVO and self-transcendence, with SVO mediating this relationship. However, the effect weakens at higher levels of self-efficacy.

Whereas self-transcendence experience plays an important role in social actions such as donation behaviours (Dunn et al., 2020), its implications in entrepreneurship have not been explored. We are witnessing a growing number of young enterprising individuals who are motivated by prosocial orientation, intrinsic motivation and moral concerns (United Nations, 2020; Blocker et al., 2024). They exemplify what is termed self-transcendence experience – a state of connectedness in which one feels part of something greater than the self (Dunn et al., 2020). The extant literature, however, remains unclear about how this affiliation-based fulfilment outcome. Answering the call for more research on entrepreneurial cognition (Murnieks et al., 2020), we aim to examine different forms of young nascent entrepreneurs’ mindset (i.e. how vs why mindset) and their role in the establishment of a new social venture. We conducted three experimental studies and one survey to test our hypotheses by examining the relationship between the entrepreneurial mindset (i.e. how vs why mindset) and self-transcendence experience, mediated by SVO and moderated by self-efficacy. The objective of Study 1 was to confirm that when engaging in a social business, young enterprising individuals with entrepreneurial intentions possessing a why mindset perceived a higher level of transcendence than those with a how mindset (i.e. H1; using the scenario of a restaurant building employment skills for underemployed groups). Using a different scenario (a social supermarket), Study 2 aimed to provide empirical evidence for H1, and test the mediating effect of SVO (i.e. H2) as well as the moderating effects of self-efficacy (H3 and H4).

Study 3a used the respondents’ own social business ideas to confirm all the hypotheses, while Study 3b demonstrates outcomes of transcendence and ruled out alternative explanations. We also validated the experimental results with a survey (Study 4) to validate the entire conceptual framework. The findings demonstrate that the why mindset is associated with a higher level of self-transcendence experience and SVO than the how mindset is; however, the difference only exists when self-efficacy is low. Furthermore, the results show that awe and flow do not function as mediators in the relationship between mindset and self-transcendence, confirming the key role of SVO. The analyses of downstream outcomes provide exploratory insight into how self-transcendence may relate to broader psychological and entrepreneurial orientations. Specifically, higher levels of self-transcendence are associated with greater opportunity recognition, suggesting that a transcendent sense of purpose may shape how enterprising individuals interpret potential opportunities. Beyond entrepreneurship, self-transcendence was associated with a greater experience of meaning in life. These findings suggest that self-transcendence may have relevance beyond the immediate cognitive–motivational processes examined in this study, extending to broader psychological fulfilment and a sense of purpose.

Our study makes several contributions to the extant literature. Firstly, we advance the entrepreneurial cognition literature by mapping the Construal Level Theory (CLT) onto two core forms of entrepreneurial cognition: the why-mindset (high-level, abstract) and the how-mindset (low-level, concrete). We find that being in the why-mindset increases the experience of self-transcendence compared to being in the how-mindset. Our study responds to a recent call for further research on how entrepreneurial motivation can shift when entrepreneurs engage in different activities throughout their ventures (Murnieks et al., 2020). Our findings support a central tenet of CLT that psychological distance leads to changes in judgement and decision-making inputs via abstract thinking (Williams et al., 2014). While CLT has been widely applied to cognitive outcomes such as judgement, planning and motivation, our findings introduce self-transcendence as a novel cognitive–affective outcome of psychological distance. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study that explores how an emphasis on the near future relative to the distant future in the new venture creation journey affects self-transcendence experience, thereby demonstrating the relevance of CLT in entrepreneurial cognition.

Secondly, we advance the understanding of the mindset-transcendence linkage by highlighting SVO as a key mechanism through which cognitive construal influences prosocial motivation. This finding integrates insights from moral psychology (e.g. prosocial versus proself orientations) with entrepreneurship research on motivation and self-concept, illustrating how the activation of idealistic versus pragmatic selves (Danziger et al., 2012) can shift entrepreneurs’ resource allocation preferences. This offers novel insights into the mechanism by which varying levels of psychological distance, inherent in different mindsets, can influence motivational behaviour, namely, prosocial versus proself, that is central to the desirable state of connectedness beyond the self (Levenson et al., 2005; Yaden et al., 2017). Our findings contribute to theory by demonstrating that psychological engagement with the why mindset (vs the how mindset) among young enterprising individuals shifts their motivational focus towards the joint benefits of the self and others, rather than self-serving resource allocation. This advances our understanding of how entrepreneurial mindsets shape social business venture behaviour. Our research also offers new insights into the feasibility (i.e. a focus on means and resources in the proximal future) and desirability (i.e. a focus on more valued goals in the distant future) aspects of CLT (Hong and Lee, 2021), positioning them as critical drivers in activating two conflicting selves – pragmatic and idealistic – which correspond to enterprising individuals’ proself and prosocial orientation, respectively (van Houwelingen et al., 2017).

Finally, drawing on vested interest theory (Siegel et al., 2021), we identify entrepreneurial self-efficacy as a boundary condition that shapes the relationship between mindset and transcendence. A high level of self-efficacy can mitigate the differential effect of the why- and how-mindsets on self-transcendence and SVO by reducing the proximal focus typically associated with the how-mindset. Therefore, when individuals shift from the why to the how-mindset, they may not experience a decline in self-transcendence and SVO, provided their self-efficacy remains high. This theoretical integration extends CLT by demonstrating that self-efficacy moderates the effects of construal level on prosocial and transcendence outcomes, thereby positioning self-efficacy as a self-regulatory resource that sustains transcendence even under concrete (how) mindsets. This study reinforces the importance of self-efficacy as a key link between entrepreneurial attitude and behaviour (Hsu et al., 2019) and underscores its relevance for future research applying CLT.

Entrepreneurs can contribute to solving social issues for the betterment of society by engaging in social business ventures (Gupta et al., 2020). The process of founding a social business, however, can be challenging, especially among young enterprising individuals with entrepreneurial intentions who often lack experience and necessary resources. Our research offers key considerations for entrepreneurial practices. Firstly, our findings on the mindset-transcendence linkage show that young social venture entrepreneurs who engage in the why-mindset are strongly associated with affiliation-based fulfilment (i.e. self-transcendence). Recognising the distinct effects of why and how mindsets can help institutions segment entrepreneurs based on their dominant cognitive orientation and tailor interventions accordingly. For instance, early-stage entrepreneurs with a strong how-mindset may benefit from training that cultivates abstract, purpose-driven thinking to strengthen prosocial motivation and long-term vision. This purpose should be woven into everyday operations, driving meaningful engagement in community betterment. In addition, cultivating self-transcendence through community engagement and reflection helps social entrepreneurs anchor their efforts in values that transcend individual success, strengthening their dedication and deepening their connection to their social business venture.

Secondly, our findings underscore prosocial (vs proself) orientation as a critical pathway through which the why-mindset (vs the how-mindset) remains connected to a sense of belonging to a broader community (i.e. self-transcendence experience). Specifically, our research offers a clear roadmap for young nascent entrepreneurs who choose to tackle social challenges to navigate the tension between why and how mindsets in relation to self-transcendence, through prosocial orientation, an ever-present force in the journey of new social business venture creation. That is as enterprising individuals progress in their start-up development, being aware of the shift from “idealistic ends and seeing the forest” to “pragmatic means and seeing the trees” is critically important. Entering the pragmatic mindset – focused on feasibility, complexity and means to an end – can lead to a shift towards a proself orientation, which, in turn, may reduce their experience of self-transcendence. A lack of awareness of this shift can be detrimental to a young entrepreneur’s mentality. Entrepreneurship programmes should therefore help founders maintain balance by integrating reflection, community partnerships and financially sustainable practices that reinforce prosocial values while enabling adaptive decision-making.

Finally, our findings reveal that enterprising individuals who engage in the why-mindset are more prosocially oriented and experience a higher level of self-transcendence than those who adopt the how-mindset – but only when their level of self-efficacy is low. This suggests that an entrepreneurial mindset becomes a key differentiator among individuals with lower self-efficacy. As such, along their journey of gradually building self-efficacy, enterprising individuals should reframe their missions to include both idealistic and pragmatic elements as part of a dual alignment. This reframing cultivates their emerging self-belief while deepening their dedication, ensuring their entrepreneurial journey remains meaningful and actionable. This indicates that mindset interventions can be particularly valuable for those in early venture stages. In addition, educators and coaches can design activities that build self-efficacy, such as mastery experiences, peer learning or purpose reframing. Aligning mindset interventions with venture stages can enhance both resilience and performance. For instance, framing a mission as “driving sustainability through smart logistics and real-time tracking” bridges idealistic and pragmatic goals, reinforcing self-belief while preserving meaning.

This paper is among the first to highlight self-transcendence experience as an important affiliation-based fulfilment goal and its link to cognitive mindsets in nascent entrepreneurship. As the majority of participants in Study 4 were females, future research could replicate the survey using a more balanced sample. Moreover, an experience monitoring approach (Uy et al., 2010) can be used in a follow-up study to capture the feelings of self-efficacy and self-transcendence while in the midst of the entrepreneurial process, rather than just thinking about the process. A cross-national study could also assist in validating the findings in the context of cultural differences. Further, our conceptual framework could be extended to explore other potential mediating and moderating mechanisms, for example, other components of vested interest, such as a stake, certainty, immediacy and salience (Crano and Prislin, 1995), and alternative psychological mechanisms that may more directly underlie self-transcendence experiences in entrepreneurial contexts. Given that emotions often interact with cognition and can shape moral or prosocial responses, future studies could examine how specific emotional states (e.g. empathy, awe or moral elevation) influence or interact with mindset in driving self-transcendence and related outcomes. Incorporating emotional processes would provide a more holistic understanding of how cognitive and affective mechanisms jointly contribute to entrepreneurial and consumer decision-making.

Moreover, we used between-subjects design and established the differential impacts of the how and why mindsets on self-transcendence experience and SVO among young nascent entrepreneurs at a point in time. Future research could also explore within-subject or longitudinal designs to examine how entrepreneurs dynamically shift between “why” and “how” mindsets over time and how such shifts influence decision-making, motivation and prosocial outcomes across different stages of venture development. This would provide a richer understanding of cognitive flexibility in entrepreneurial contexts. In addition, building on Study 3b, future studies could explore other downstream outcomes, such as perceived risk, entrepreneurial intention, life satisfaction and meaning at work. Furthermore, researchers could explore the role of “why” versus “how” mindsets and self-transcendence experiences in consumer behaviour contexts. The why–how distinction parallels consumers’ abstract versus concrete construal when evaluating purpose-driven brands, transformative experiences or prosocial products. Conceptualising self-transcendence as a form of consumer experience offers new insights into how high-level construal fosters moral awareness, long-term engagement and well-being in the marketplace. For example, it would be valuable to examine how these mindsets influence consumers’ purchase intentions, brand engagement or willingness to pay for socially responsible products, and the mechanisms through which self-transcendence experiences shape consumer decision-making. Finally, future studies could use phenomenological interviews or other qualitative methods to capture the lived cognitive experiences of entrepreneurs. Such approaches would provide rich, sophisticated insights into how entrepreneurs perceive, interpret and respond to the challenges of their venture journey, complementing the findings presented in this study.

Research Ethics has been approved by Griffith University.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.