Nepotism is kinship-based favoritism in the job market. People everywhere utilize their social connections to gain employment (Granovetter, 1973), but how they use them depends on the relationship between the employer and potential employee (Akcinar, 2015). Nepotism contrasts meritocracy, as a relative is not always as suited for a job as a different non-relative candidate. However, there are advantages to securing jobs through nepotism. It can provide financial security to one’s family or create a friendly, trusting work environment (Hooker, 2009). This has been seen around the world. For instance, in post-Soviet Ukraine, non-monetized close connections or friendships (blat) are common ways for graduates to find jobs (Onoshchenko and Williams, 2013). Therefore, such trust-building strategies lead to nepotistic decisions (Nie and Lämsä, 2015).

Family businesses provide 40–70% of the world GDP (Zellweger, 2017). In Hungary, half of the businesses are family business (Csákné Filep, 2012), and in the US, approximately 62% of employees are employed in family owned businesses (Astrachan and Shanker, 2003). Within these companies, the paternal head of the family frequently leads the business in some manner, especially regarding hiring (Gersick et al., 1999). For them, choosing to hire a loved one vs. a stranger can be not only an ethical dilemma, but a business management question as well. We assume that such business management questions are treated differently in a resource-rich vs. a resource-poor environment. In the following, we will describe potential mechanisms through which poverty can create situations in which nepotism may appear. This line of thought will cover the following three levels: cross-cultural differences, socioeconomic differences, and situational threats.

The World Economic Forum (Van de Vliert, 2011) studied cross-country variation of perceived nepotism in 118 countries. The United States was ranked lowest while Hungary was ranked 31st. Van de Vliert’s measure appears to be very stable over time, so the rankings from the 2006 to 2008 dataset may still be relevant in 2020. In Hungary, hiring a family member means trusting that this new employee will perform better than an “external” employee (Bogáth, 2016). In the US, instead of using the recommendations of strong links like close friends or family members, using weak links is more accepted (Granovetter, 1973). Furthermore, using nepotism to get a job has a negative connotation and it casts as “undue preference” for one’s in-group (Bellow, 2004).

Similar to nepotism (Van de Vliert, 2011), collaborative dishonesties such as corruption (Aidt, 2009) or collaborative cheating on exams (Orosz et al., 2018) are inversely related to a nation’s wealth. While corrupt acts might help facilitate deals (e.g., Huntington, 1968), collaborative forms of cheating can aid the cheaters in the long run (Poltorak, 1995), and family members can create high profits for their family business, all of these can also be inefficient and may contribute to more poverty from the perspective of broader communities (Mustapha, 2014).

We suppose that a country’s wealth (i.e., US and Hungary) can serve as a basis for judgment regardless of the individual’s position within the social hierarchy or other situational factors. Our hypothesis connects these problems to the national level: people from less wealthy countries will be willing to engage in nepotism more to protect their loved ones in a harsh environment.

At the social class level, the underlying status of a given individual may influence the social or internalized norms (Grolleau et al., 2016) that guide their moral judgment. We believe that in reference to this status, truly rich people will engage in nepotism more. Although poor people have less resources (Oakes and Rossi, 2003), they are willing to be more prosocial with what they have (Piff et al., 2010), since they are embedded in social networks where mutual relationships and support are essential (Lamont, 2000; Kraus and Keltner, 2009). Thus, these individuals tend to be external or other-oriented (Piff et al., 2016) and are more sensitive to the needs of others (Kraus and Keltner, 2009).

The converse also holds true: people of higher socioeconomic status tend to be less prosocial. One way this tendency might manifest itself is through illegal behaviors like nepotism. Individuals with higher SES are more likely to break the law, cheat, or engage in other unethical behaviors in the workplace (e.g., receiving bribes) due to their favorable attitudes toward greed (Piff et al., 2012), greater resources, independence (Kraus et al., 2012), and self-focused social cognition that emphasizes personal goals and motivations (Kraus et al., 2011, 2012). They usually exhibit higher narcissistic tendencies and entitlement (Piff, 2014), spend their income on self-interested goods (Frank, 1999), donate less (Independent Sector, 2002), and behave more selfishly (Piff et al., 2010). Thus, we hypothesized that more affluent participants would be more willing to be nepotistic.

We hypothesized that at the situational level, the propensity to cheat varies with the severity of the perceived financial threat of a given situation. We predict that the magnitude of this threat relies upon the in-scenario imagined social status participants are framed in. If a participant takes the position of a poor character (like Heinz) in an imaginary scenario, he or she will be more willing to engage in nepotism. The opposite will be true for subjects that take the position of rich character, therefore engaging in the behavior less.

Normally, people avoid taking risks, choosing outcomes that are certain rather than ones that are “possible” (Kahneman and Tversky, 2013). Contrarily, individuals of lower SES are more willing to take financial risks (Kahneman and Tversky, 1979; Brieant et al., 2021). This falls under the umbrella of prospect theory, which tells that people will engage in risky behaviors when threatened with high-probability losses (Bosch-Domènech and Silvestre, 2010). For them, some dangerous decisions are necessary for survival (Trimpop, 1994), as a large portion of their income is devoted to survival necessities like food or housing (Banerjee and Duflo, 2007). Furthermore, something like losing a loved one is absolutely devastating to anyone (Shear, 2012), and for the sake of those people, an individual can more easily justify self-sacrifice (Heinemann, 2014) or illegal behaviors. Thereby, as our participants imagine themselves in a lower socioeconomic class, they will be thrust into these loss situations and forced to avoid the threatening risks.

In summary, we have a hypothesis for each level of poverty: If a participant is from a less affluent country (i.e., United States and Hungary), has high socioeconomic status, or takes the position of a poor person in a dilemma situation, they will manifest more nepotistic hiring intents.

Participants were requested to voluntarily complete an anonymous online survey with demographic questions and a moral dilemma story for approximately 10 min. As the present one was a preliminary vignette study without any sort of data gathering funding, we advertised the experimental link on social media platforms. Participants did not receive any sort of compensation. We based our sample size decision on Akcinar’s (2015) studies who used similar methods to compare US and Turkish respondents. They were informed of data collection procedures and any associated risks with the information. They would first answer questions related to the dilemma and then fill out details about themselves. The dilemma had four different versions based upon two variables (situational framing: rich vs. poor and nepotistic vs. non-nepotistic hiring decision). Finally, participants were debriefed.

In the Hungarian sample, we received responses from 191 persons (62% female, 16.5% male, 21.5% did not report gender, aged between 18 and 51, M_age = 23.91; SD_age = 6.51). Regarding the highest level of education, 44.5% reported that they had a high school degree, 33.5% had a higher education degree (20.9% missing). Among them, 44% reported that they belong to a minority group (e.g., people with a Transylvanian identity currently living in Hungary or belonging to a gypsy community) and 35.1% reported that they do not belong to a minority group (20.9% missing). Using the MacArthur SES ladder, participants reported a mean SES of 6.27 with SD = 1.34 (ranged from 3 to 10). The theoretical range of the ladder’s scores is 1–10.

In the United States, we received responses from 176 persons (40.9% female, 57.6% male, 2.3% did not report gender, aged between 15 and 85 years, M_age = 33.77; SD_age = 12.88, 4% did not report age). Regarding the highest level of education 10.8% reported having no degree at all, 17.6% reported that they had a high school degree, and 69.3% had a higher education degree (2.3% missing). On the basis of ethnicity, 64.2% reported that they were Caucasian, 5.7% reported Hispanic or Latino, 9.1% reported African American, 2.8% reported Native American, 12.5% reported Asian or Pacific Islander, and 2.3% reported “Other” (3.4% missing). Using the MacArthur SES ladder, participants reported a mean SES of 6.44 with SD = 2.03 (ranged from 1 to 10).

The two samples were not different regarding their MacArthur ladder (t = −0.912, p = 0.319). However, there were more female participants in the Hungarian sample [χ²(1, N = 320) = 47.18, p < 0.001] and there were more US participants with higher education degrees [χ²(1, N = 323) = 34.27, p < 0.001]. Hungarians were also significantly younger [t(318) = −8.49, p < 0.001]. In the US group, there were less people who reported that they belong to a minority group than in Hungary [χ²(1, N = 321) = 15.86, p < 0.001].

With OLS regression analyses, in an imaginary situation, we examined the effect of four main predictors (independent variables): two experimentally manipulated, and two measured ones. Nepotistic and non-nepotistic condition as well as situational imagined poverty were experimentally manipulated. However, SES and culture was not manipulated. The most important outcome (dependent) variables were behavioral intentions to behave the same way as the person in the scenario and the evaluation of this person. For the sake of simplicity, we will show the standardized results. In additional analyses, we also controlled for differences in demographic variables (gender, age, ethnicity, and level of education).

U.S. participants reported stronger nepotistic behavioral intentions (M = 5.00, SE = 0.13) than Hungarian participants (M = 3.53, SE = 0.13) and these differences were strongly significant [β = 0.79, t(342) = 8.021, p < 0.001, d = 0.79]. In addition, both means were significantly different from the midpoint (4.00) of the scale (both p < 0.001).

Participants who reported that they are higher on the McArthur measure reported stronger nepotistic behavioral intentions [β = 0.20, t(319) = 3.73, p < 0.001, d = 0.20].

Participants belonging to the induced poor condition reported stronger nepotistic behavioral intentions (M = 4.56, SE = 0.14) than participants in the induced rich condition (M = 4.01, SE = 0.14). These differences were strongly significant [β = 0.30, t(342) = 2.78, p = 0.006, d = 0.30].

Participants who imagined themselves as someone doing a nepotistic act to support their family reported stronger behavioral intentions to act in the same manner (M = 4.69, SE = 0.14) than those participants who were presented the non-nepotistic scenario (M = 3.88, SE = 0.14); these differences were strongly significant [β = 0.43, t(342) = 4.13, p < 0.001, d = 0.43].

Some of the trends that we hypothesized came true: participants in imagined poverty situations were more accepting of nepotism (M_poor = 4.56; M_rich = 4.01), and participants who were richer in real life were more willing to engage in nepotism (continuous measure). However, we were incorrect in our judgment of cultures, where the participants from the more affluent United States had higher nepotistic intentions than those from Hungary (M_US = 5.00; M_HU = 3.53).

If we inserted the control variables in separate regression models or if all of the predictors were present in the same OLS regression model, their main effect also remained strongly significant (see Figure 1).

U.S. participants reported more positive character evaluation (M = 3.39, SE = 0.07) than Hungarians (M = 2.81, SE = 0.07) and these differences were strongly significant [β = 0.66, t(340) = 6.43, p < 0.001, d = 0.66].

Participants who reported that they are higher on the McArthur measure reported more favorable character evaluations [β = 0.16, t(318) = 2.92, p = 0.004, d = 0.16].

Participants belonging to the induced poor condition reported more positive character evaluation (M = 3.34, SE = 0.07) than participants in the induced rich condition (M = 2.88, SE = 0.07). These differences were strongly significant [β = 0.51, t(340) = 4.91, p < 0.001, d = 0.51].

Participants who evaluated someone doing a nepotistic act reported more positive character evaluation (M = 3.37, SE = 0.07) than those who did not engage in nepotism (M = 2.85, SE = 0.07), and these differences were strongly significant [β = 0.58, t(340) = 5.55, p < 0.001, d = 0.58].

If all of the predictors were simultaneously present in the same regression analysis and or demographic variables were added (gender, age, level of education), their effect also remained strongly significant (see Figure 2).

We expected that similarly to other collaborative forms of illicit behaviors, such as corruption (Aidt, 2009) or academic cheating (Orosz et al., 2018), nepotistic behavioral intentions (Van de Vliert, 2011) would be more strongly present among less affluent Hungarian respondents than among more affluent US respondents based on prior cross-cultural studies and Eastern-European socio-historical background. In Hungary, family values became incredibly salient after WWII as extra-familial networks like unions, clubs, and other organizations disappeared (Hankiss, 1989), and familial ties became stronger, possibly providing ground or rationalizing the use of nepotism.

In the US context there are different value-backgrounds with regard to nepotism. In typically Western, individualistic cultures, people tend to characterize achievement in the job market based on their own individual morals or dreams (Spence, 1985). In this cultural context, nepotism is most viewed with a negative connotation (even being referred to as an “inherent evil”; Olsson, 2017), but it can also be seen as a positive factor by lowering unemployment. This side can become especially prevalent in high employment threat situations. For example, during the pandemic, corporate strategies shifted to mimic family businesses, specifically with regard to community-focused actions (Rivo-López et al., 2021). The preference for in-group favoritism might bring with it a reliance on practices like nepotism and it is likely that the usage of such tactics might have become more popular under COVID-19.

There is a strong scientific consensus that people with higher SES are more likely to use unethical behaviors than their peers with lower SES (e.g., Piff et al., 2012). The present result strongly supports these prior scientific findings. However, it is beyond the scope of this preliminary study to identify the specific reasons behind these socio-economic differences. It might be related to greater independence, self-focused social cognition, selfishness, narcissistic tendencies or entitlement (Piff et al., 2010; Piff, 2014; Kraus et al., 2011, 2012; Piff et al., 2012). However, it is not guaranteed that this phenomena can be explained by a psychological mechanism that is related to pure self-interest in the case of nepotism. It might be possible that people with higher SES have a narrower sense of “self,” maintaining a self-interest that includes their family members, while people with lower SES might have a broader sense of “self”-interest including people who are less close to them. In this brief report we aimed to show these solid SES differences in imaginary nepotistic scenarios, and future studies might delve into the research on specific psychological mechanisms responsible for such differences.

At the imagined situational level, participants followed the trends we predicted: people who imagined that they were poor, reported stronger behavioral intentions to act nepotistically. These results align with the theory from Kahneman and Tversky (1979), as an imagined poor situation can be perceived as a threat. Therefore, people may sometimes take dangerous or morally unacceptable measures to reduce that risk in their lives. This loss aversion in threatening situations does not only induce risk-seeking behaviors, but also provides an appropriate rationalization of behaving unethically (Heinemann, 2014).

Naturally, this preliminary work is not without its limitations. First, as this was a preliminary study, we did not use a standardized approach of data collection, therefore the samples were not representative for Hungarian or US populations; therefore, the cross-cultural comparisons should be dealt with and require further in-depth investigations using representative samples. Second, instead of measuring actual hiring behavior in nepotistic situations, we implemented a self-reported vignette method that was evaluated with survey items. Future studies might consider using behavioral methods. Third, we used a single item measure of behavioral intentions; however, it appears that the character evaluation measure that included six items led to very similar results. Fourth, the demographic characteristics of the US and Hungarian respondents were very different; however, as we controlled for these differences the main results did not change in the case of both the behavioral intentions or the character evaluation. Fifth, the study was run in a very unusual period of time, when uncertainty was very strong in the US labor force; therefore, we suspect that cultural differences might be different if these questions are asked in a less unstable period of time. Sixth, besides poverty, there might be other relevant cultural differences between Hungary and the US. Seventh, future studies can identify differences between nepotistic and non-nepotistic decisions by contrasting more sharply the two options.