IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/diw/diwrup/138de.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Soziale Interaktion und geschlechtsspezifisches Wettbewerbsverhalten

Author

Listed:
  • Tim Lohse
  • Salmai Qari

Abstract

Entscheidende Charakteristika einer modernen Dienstleistungs- und damit auch beruflichen „Ellenbogen“-Gesellschaft sind interpersonelle Kommunikation und Interaktion von Angesicht zu Angesicht– selbst in einer digitalen Welt. Studien im Bereich Personalgewinnung zeigen, dass Bewerberinnen und Bewerber im persönlichen Gespräch häufig besser bewertet werden als in fernmündlichen Gesprächen via Telefon oder Videocall (Blacksmith et. al, 2016; Basch et. al, 2021). Darüber hinaus belegt eine Umfrage des Harvard Business Review (2016) die Wichtigkeit von direkter Interaktion als entscheidendes Merkmal für den Aufbau langfristiger Geschäftsbeziehungen (95% der Befragten), für das Verhandeln von Verträgen (89%) oder das Verstehen wichtiger Klienten (69%). Für den Geschäftserfolg ist es dabei von großer Bedeutung, dem Gegenüber als möglichst glaub- und vertrauenswürdig zu erscheinen, insbesondere im Vergleich zu etwaigen Konkurrenten. Das galt vor der Corona-Pandemie und dürfte voraussichtlich auch nach der Corona-Pandemie gelten.

Suggested Citation

  • Tim Lohse & Salmai Qari, 2021. "Soziale Interaktion und geschlechtsspezifisches Wettbewerbsverhalten," DIW Roundup: Politik im Fokus 138, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwrup:138de
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.diw.de/documents/publikationen/73/diw_01.c.831581.de/DIW_Roundup_138_de.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    2. Dwenger, Nadja & Lohse, Tim, 2019. "Do individuals successfully cover up their lies? Evidence from a compliance experiment," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 74-87.
    3. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2000. "What’s in a Name? Anonymity and Social Distance in Dictator and Ultimatum Games," University of California at Santa Barbara, Economics Working Paper Series qt57q360q6, Department of Economics, UC Santa Barbara.
    4. Charness, Gary & Gneezy, Uri, 2008. "What's in a name? Anonymity and social distance in dictator and ultimatum games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-35, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lohse, Tim & Qari, Salmai, 2021. "Gender differences in face-to-face deceptive behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 187(C), pages 1-15.
    2. Simon Gächter & Chris Starmer & Fabio Tufano, 2025. "Measuring Group Cohesion to Reveal the Power of Social Relationships in Team Production," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 107(2), pages 539-554, March.
    3. Emin Karagözoğlu & Elif Tosun, 2022. "Endogenous Game Choice and Giving Behavior in Distribution Games," Games, MDPI, vol. 13(6), pages 1-32, November.
    4. Nadine Chlaß & Peter G. Moffatt, 2017. "Giving in Dictator Games - Experimenter Demand Effect or Preference over the Rules of the Game?," Jena Economics Research Papers 2012-044, Friedrich-Schiller-University Jena.
    5. Cui, Chi & Dai, Ming & Alevy, Jonathan, 2025. "The Measurement of Changes in Distributional Preferences," Working Papers 0759, University of Heidelberg, Department of Economics.
    6. Alain Cohn & Tobias Gesche & Michel André Maréchal, 2022. "Honesty in the Digital Age," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(2), pages 827-845, February.
    7. Al-Ubaydli, Omar & Yeomans, Mike, 2017. "Do people donate more when they perceive a single beneficiary whom they know? A field experimental test of the identifiability effect," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 96-103.
    8. Rémi Suchon & Marie Claire Villeval, 2017. "Does upward mobility harm trust?," Post-Print halshs-01659021, HAL.
    9. Anya Savikhin & Roman Sheremeta, 2010. "Visibility of Contributions and Cost of Information: An Experiment on Public Goods," Working Papers 10-22, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.
    10. Adnan, Wifag & Arin, K. Peren & Charness, Gary & Lacomba, Juan A. & Lagos, Francisco, 2022. "Which social categories matter to people: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 125-145.
    11. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2021. "Nonverbal content and trust: An experiment on digital communication," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 59(4), pages 1517-1532, October.
    12. Chuan, Amanda & Samek, Anya Savikhin, 2014. "“Feel the Warmth” glow: A field experiment on manipulating the act of giving," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 198-211.
    13. Prasenjit Banerjee & Vegard Iversen & Sandip Mitra & Antonio Nicolò & Kunal Sen, 2018. "Politicians and Their Promises in an Uncertain World: Evidence from a Lab-in-the-Field Experiment in India," Economics Discussion Paper Series 1806, Economics, The University of Manchester.
    14. Wang, Xinghua & Navarro-Martinez, Daniel, 2023. "Increasing the external validity of social preference games by reducing measurement error," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 261-285.
    15. Pamela Jakiela, 2013. "Equity vs. efficiency vs. self-interest: on the use of dictator games to measure distributional preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(2), pages 208-221, June.
    16. Yang, Zhiyong & Janakiraman, Narayan & Hossain, Mehdi T. & Grisaffe, Douglas B., 2020. "Differential effects of pay-it-forward and direct-reciprocity on prosocial behavior," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 400-408.
    17. Marco Castillo & Gregory Leo & Ragan Petrie, 2013. "Room Effects," Working Papers 1040, George Mason University, Interdisciplinary Center for Economic Science, revised Apr 2013.
    18. Atsebi, Jean-Marc Bédhat & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, Ada, 2019. "Relative Deprivation in Tanzania," IZA Discussion Papers 12719, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Joy Buchanan & Elif E. Demiral & Ümit Sağlam, 2025. "Effort transparency and fairness," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 202(3), pages 611-626, March.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwrup:138de. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.