Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A Note on Intention to Settle

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Construction Dispute Research Expanded

Part of the book series: Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering ((SPRTRCIENG))

Abstract

It is beyond doubt that negotiation is the most effective way to resolve construction dispute. However, failing negotiation are not uncommon. It is advocated that having an ‘intention to settle’ would provide construction dispute negotiation. Unwillingness to settle would make negotiation difficult and in the worst scenario, would lead to costly attribution or litigation. Based on the literature on pillars of negotiations, four factors are identified: (i) preparation; (ii) negotiation skill; (iii) relationship; and (iv) the self. The hierarchy of the four ingredients ranges from macro to micro and from project specific to disputant specific. Mastering the understanding of these elements can help design the dispute negotiation conditions and provide some insights for negotiators to recognize how and when a negotiator is ready for settlement.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Chapman S (2010) Multi-tiered dispute resolution clauses: enforcing obligations to negotiate in good faith. J Int Arbitr 27(1):89–98

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  2. Cheung SO, Li K (2019) Biases in construction project dispute resolution. Eng Constr Archit Manage 26(2):321–348. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-03-2018-0109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Mitropoulos P, Howell G (2001) Model for understanding, preventing and resolving project disputes. J Const Eng Manag 127(3):223–231

    Google Scholar 

  4. Loosemore M (1999) A grounded theory of construction crisis management. Constr Manage Econ 17(1):9–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461999371781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Simon HA (1957) Models of man; social and rational

    Google Scholar 

  6. Yiu TW, Cheung SO, Lok CL (2015) A fuzzy fault tree framework of construction dispute negotiation failure. IEEE Trans Eng Manage 62(2):171–183. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2015.2407369

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bazerman MH, Chugh D (2005) Bounded awareness: focusing failures in negotiation. Frontieres of social psychology: negotiation, vol 04–062, pp 7–26

    Google Scholar 

  8. Cheung SO, Yiu TW (2006) Are construction disputes inevitable? IEEE Trans Eng Manage 53(3):456–470. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2006.877445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Meng X, Boyd P (2017) The role of the project manager in relationship management. Int J Project Manage 35(5):717–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.03.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bandura, A. (1993). Perceived self-efficacy in cognitive development and functioning. Educ Psychol 28:117–148. Retrieved from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15326985ep2802_3

  11. Bagozzi RP (1992) The self-regulation of attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Soc Psychol 55(2):178–204. https://doi.org/10.1007/sl21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hagger MS, Chatzisarantis NLD, Biddle SJH (2002) A meta-analytic review of the theories of reasoned action and planned behavior in physical activity: an examination of predictive validity and the contribution of additional variables. J Sport Exercise Psy 24(1):3–32

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Action control, Springer, pp 11–39

    Google Scholar 

  14. Johari S, Jha KN (2020) Interrelationship among belief, intention, attitude, behavior, and performance of construction workers. J Manage Eng 36(6):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Christen CT (2004) Predicting willingness to negotiate: the effects of perceived power and trustworthiness in a model of strategic public relations. J Public Relat Res 16(3):243–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/1532-754X.2004.11925129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Stein JG (1989) Getting to the table: the triggers, stages, functions, and consequences of prenegotiation. Int J: Canada’s J Global Policy Anal 44(2):475–504. https://doi.org/10.1177/002070208904400209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lumineau F, Henderson JE (2012) The influence of relational experience and contractual governance on the negotiation strategy in buyer–supplier disputes. J Oper Manage 30(5):382–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2012.03.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Chebet WT, Phil M, Rotich JK, Kurgat A (2015) Negotiation skills: keys to business excellence in the 21st century? European J Res Reflection Manage Sci 3(3):23–31

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kteily N, Saguy T, Sidanius J, Taylor DM (2013) Negotiating power: agenda ordering and the willingness to negotiate in asymmetric intergroup conflicts. J Pers Soc Psychol 105(6):978–995. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Macfarlane J (2001) Why do people settle? McGill Law J 46(3):663–711

    Google Scholar 

  21. Curhan JR, Elfenbein HA, Xu H (2006) What do people value when they negotiate? Mapping the domain of subjective value in negotiation. J Pers Soc Psychol 91(3):493–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.3.493

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thompson L (1990) Negotiation behavior and outcomes: empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychol Bull 108(3):515–532. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.515

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Cheung SO, Chow PT (2011) Withdrawal in construction project dispute negotiation. J Constr Eng Manage 137(12):1071–1079. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Whitney FW (1983) Winning: the art of successful negotiation. Occup Health Nurs 31(5):31–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/216507998303100505

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Halpert JA, Stuhlmacher AF, Crenshaw JL, Litcher CD, Bortel R (2010) Paths to negotiation success. Negot Confl Manage Res 3(2):91–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00051.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Lenarčič B, Franc B (2013) Analysis of influences on buyer-supplier negotiation. Innov Issue Approaches Soc Sci 7(2):81–98

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lu W, Li Z, Wang S (2017) The role of justice for cooperation and contract’s moderating effect in construction dispute negotiation. Eng Constr Archit Manage 24(1):133–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/ECAM-01-2015-0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Cheung SO, Wong WK, Yiu TW, Kwok TW (2008) Exploring the influence of contract governance on construction dispute negotiation (October):391–399

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cheung SO, Pang KHY (2013) Anatomy of construction disputes. J Constr Eng Manage 139(1):15–23. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000532

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuon B, Uhlich GR (1993) The negotiation agreement area: an experimental analysis of two-person characteristic function games. Group Decis Negot 2(4):323–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Van Poucke D, Buelens M (2002) Predicting the outcome of a two-party price negotiation: contribution of reservation price, aspiration price and opening offer. J Econ Psychol 23(1):67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-4870(01)00068-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Schaerer M, Loschelder DD, Swaab RI (2016) Bargaining zone distortion in negotiations: the elusive power of multiple alternatives. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 137:156–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tajima M, Fraser NM (2001) Logrolling procedure for multi-issue negotiation. Group Decis Negot 10(3):217–235. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011262625052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gupta S (1989) Modeling integrative, multiple issue bargaining. Manag Sci 35(7):788–806

    Google Scholar 

  35. Faratin P, Mary Q, College W, London E (2000) Using similarity criteria to make negotiation trade-offs (0)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Qu Y, Cheung SO (2012) Logrolling “win-win” settlement in construction dispute mediation. Autom Constr 24:61–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2012.02.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fapohunda TM (2013) Towards effective team building in the workplace. Int J Educ Res 1:1–12

    Google Scholar 

  38. Salvato C, Corbetta G (2013) Transitional leadership of advisors as a facilitator of successors’ leadership construction. Fam Bus Rev 26:235–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Tabassi AA, Roufechaei KM, Ramli M, Bakar AHA, Ismail R, Pakir AHK (2016) Leadership competences of sustainable construction project managers. J Cleaner Prod 124:339–349

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mathieu J, Maynard TM, Rapp T, Gilson L (2008) Team effectiveness 1997–2007: a review of recent advancements and a glimpse into the future. J Manage 34(3):410–476. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206308316061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Kirkman BL, Rosen B (1999) Beyond self-management: antecedents and consequences of team empowerment. Acad Manage J 42:58–74

    Google Scholar 

  42. Foels R, Driskell JE, Mullen B, Salas E (2000) The effects of democratic leadership on group member satisfaction: an integration. Small Group Res 31:676–701

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Balkundi P, Harrison DA (2006) Ties, leaders, and time in teams: strong inference about network structure’s effects on team viability and performance. Acad Manage J 49:49–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Morgeson FP (2005) The external leadership of self-managing teams: intervening in the context of novel and disruptive events. J Applied Psychol 90

    Google Scholar 

  45. Diekmann JE, Girard MJ (1995) Are contract disputes predictable? J Constr Eng Manage 121(4):355–363. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9364(1995)121:4(355)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cheung SO, Tam CM, Ndekugri I, Harris FC (2000) Factors affecting clients’ project dispute resolution satisfaction in Hong Kong. Constr Manage Econ 18(3):281–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/014461900370654

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Sharland A (n.d.) The negotiation process as a predictor of relationship outcomes in international buyer—supplier arrangements 559(2001):551–559

    Google Scholar 

  48. Chapman E, Miles EW, Maurer T (2017) A proposed model for effective negotiation skill development. J Manage Dev 36(7):940–958. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-01-2016-0002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Yiu TW, Cheung SO, Siu LY (2012) Application of Bandura’s self-efficacy theory to examining the choice of tactics in construction dispute negotiation. J Constr Eng Manage 138(3):331–340. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Follett MP (2011) Constructive conflict. Sociology Organ: Struct Relationships 417

    Google Scholar 

  51. Black RR (1970) The fifth achievement

    Google Scholar 

  52. van de Vliert E, Kabanoff B (1990) Toward theory-based measures of conflict management 33(1):199–209

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ruble TL, Thomas KW (1976) Support for a two-dimensional model of conflict behavior. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16(1):143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(76)90010-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cheung SO, Yiu TW, Yeung SF (2006) A study of styles and outcomes in construction dispute negotiation. J Constr Eng Manage 132(August):871–881. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Morse EA, Savage GT (1999) A test of the motivations underlying choice of conflict strategies in the dual-concern model (December). https://doi.org/10.1108/eb022817

  56. Rahim MA (1983) A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Acad J Manage 26(2):368–376

    Google Scholar 

  57. Montes C, Rodríguez D, Serrano G (2012) Affective choice of conflict management styles. Int J Confl Manage 23(1):6–18. https://doi.org/10.1108/10444061211199304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Lin X, Miller SJ (2003) Negotiation approaches: direct and indirect effect of national culture. Int Mark Rev 20(3):286–303+227. https://doi.org/10.1108/02651330310477602

  59. Tutzauer F, Roloff ME (1988) Communication processes leading to integrative agreements: three paths to joint benefits[J]. Commun Res 15(4):360–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Sutschek LB (2002) Conflict resolution style and experience in management: moderating the effects of gender. UW-L research grant paper (1991), pp 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759109376219

  61. Pivotto C, Antunes D, Lima T, Hwang J, Rodrigues S, De Souza JM (2011) Detection of negotiation profile and guidance to more collaborative approaches through negotiation games

    Google Scholar 

  62. Iedema J, Poppe M (1994) The effect of self-presentation on social value orientation. J Soc Psychol 134(6):771–782. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1994.9923012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Olekalns M, Smith PL (1999) Social value orientations and strategy choices in competitive negotiations. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25(6):657–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025006002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Messick DM, McClintock CG (1968) Motivational bases of choice in experimental games. J Exp Soc Psychol 4(1):1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90046-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. De Dreu CKW, Weingart LR, Kwon S (2000) Influence of social motives on integrative negotiation: a meta-analytic review and test of two theories. J Pers Soc Psychol 78(5):547–558. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-35I4.78.5.889

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. De Dreu CKW, Boles TL (1998) Share and share alike or winner take all? The influence for social value orientation on the choice and recall of heuristics in negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 76(3):253–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Rahim MA (2005) Toward a theory of managing organizational conflict. SSRN Electron J (October 2003). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.437684

  68. Thomas KW (1977) Toward multi-dimensional values in teaching: the example of conflict behaviors. Acad Manage Rev 2(3):484–490. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1977.4281851

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Meiners EB, Miller VD (2004) The effect of formality and relational tone on supervisor/subordinate negotiation episodes. West J Commun 68(3):302–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570310409374803

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Huczynski A, Buchanan D (2013) Organizationa behaviour. Retrieved from http://library.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/toc/ze_2003_855.pdf

  71. Barry B, Oliver RL (1996) Affect in dyadic negotiation: a model and propositions. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 67(2):127–143. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Carnevale PJ (2008) Positive affect and decision frame in negotiation. Group Decis Negot 17(1):51–63. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-007-9090-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Rhoades JA, Arnold J, Clifford J (2001) The role of affective traits and affective states in disputants’ motivation and behavior during episodes of organizational conflict. J Organ Behav 22(3):329–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Morris MW, Keltner D (2000) How emotions work: the social functions of emotional expression in negotiations. Res Organ Behav 22. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0191-3085(00)22002-9

  75. Baron RA (1984) Reducing organizational conflict: an incompatible response approach. J Appl Psychol 69(2):272–279. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.272

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Van Kleef GA, De Dreu CKW, Manstead ASR (2004) The interpersonal effects of emotions in negotiations: a motivated information processing approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 87(4):510–528. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.510

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Forgas JP (1998) On feeling good and getting your way: mood effects on negotiator cognition and bargaining strategies. J Pers Soc Psychol 74(3):565–577. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Carnevale PJD, Isen AM (1986) The influence of positive affect and visual access on the discovery of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37(1):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90041-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Allred KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F, Raia CP (1997) The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 70(3):175–187. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2705

    Article  Google Scholar 

  80. Bazerman MH, Curhan JR, Moore DA, Valley KL (2000) Negotiation. Soc Psychol 279–314.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Gutnik LA, Hakimzada AF, Yoskowitz NA, Patel VL (2006) The role of emotion in decision-making: a cognitive neuroeconomic approach towards understanding sexual risk behavior. J Biomed Inform 39(6):720–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2006.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Shepherd DA, Patzelt H, Wolfe M (2014) Moving forward from project failure: negative emotions, affective commitment, and learning from the experience. A psychological approach to entrepreneurship: selected essays of Dean A. Shepherd, vol 54, no 6, pp 546–576. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781783479801.00039

  83. Reilly P (2014) Mindfulness, emotions, and mental models: theory that leads to more effective dispute resolution 201–204

    Google Scholar 

  84. Kopelman S, Rosette AS, Thompson L (2006) The three faces of eve: strategic displays of positive, negative, and neutral emotions in negotiations. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 99(1):81–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2005.08.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  85. Kim K, Cundiff NL, Choi SB (2015) Emotional intelligence and negotiation outcomes: mediating effects of rapport, negotiation strategy, and judgment accuracy. Group Decis Negot 24(3):477–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-014-9399-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Caputo A (2013) A literature review of cognitive biases in negotiation processes. Int J Confl Manage 24(4):374–398. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCMA-08-2012-0064

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Bazerman MH, Moore, DA (2012) Judgment in managerial decision making. Wiley

    Google Scholar 

  88. Raiffa H (2007) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Harvard University Press

    Google Scholar 

  89. Mumpower JL, Sheffield J, Darling TA, Milter RG (2004) The accuracy of post-negotiation estimates of the other negotiator’s payoff. Group Decis Negot 13(3):259–290. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:GRUP.0000031089.91654.26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Greenhalgh L, Gilkey RW (1993) The effect of relationship orientation on negotiators’ cognitions and tactics. Group Decis Negot 2(2):167–183. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884770

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Cheung SO, Yiu TW, Chiu OK (2009) The aggressive-cooperative drivers of construction contracting. Int J Project Manage 27(7):727–735. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  92. Zhang SB, Fu YF, Gao Y, Zheng XD (2016) Influence of trust and contract on dispute negotiation behavioral strategy in construction subcontracting. J Manage Eng 32(4):04016001. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Galinsky AD, Moskowitz GB (2000) Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J Pers Soc Psychol 78(4):708–724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  94. Ben-Yoav O, Pruitt DG (1984) Resistance to yielding and the expectation of cooperative future interaction in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 20(4):323–335. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(84)90029-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Sondak H, Moore MC (1993) Relationship frames and cooperation. Group Decis Negot 2(2):103–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01884766

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Child J, Faulkner D (1998) Strategies of cooperation: managing alliances, networks, and joint ventures. Oxford University

    Google Scholar 

  97. Zaghloul R, Hartman F (2003) Construction contracts: the cost of mistrust. Int J Project Manage 21(6):419–424. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00082-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Wong PSP, Cheung SO (2004) Trust in construction partnering: views from parties of the partnering dance. Int J Project Manage 22(6):437–446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.01.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Dirks KT, Ferrin DL (2002) Trust in leadership: meta-analytic findings and implications for research and practice. J Appl Psychol 87(4):611–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Patzelt H, Shepherd DA (2016) The decision to persist with underperforming alliances: the role of trust and control. Decision making in entrepreneurship: selected joint papers of Dean A. Shepherd (November), pp 386–412. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781784716042

  101. Lewicki RJ, Saunders DM, Minton JW, Roy J, Lewicki N (2011) Essentials of negotiation. McGraw-Hill/Irwin Boston, MA

    Google Scholar 

  102. Wong PSP, Cheung SO (2005) Structural equation model of trust and partnering success. J Manage Eng 21(2):70–80. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0742-597x(2005)21:2(70)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Black C, Akintoye A, Fitzgerald E (2000) Analysis of success factors and benefits of partnering in construction. Int J Project Manage 18(6):423–434. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(99)00046-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Xue X, Shen Q, Ren Z (2010) Critical review of collaborative working in construction projects: business environment and human behaviors. J Manage Eng 26(4):196–208. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)me.1943-5479.0000025

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Kadefors A (2005) Fairness in interorganizational project relations: norms and strategies. Constr Manage Econ 23(8):871–878. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446190500184238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Bubshait AA, Almohawis SA (1994) Evaluating the general conditions of a construction contract. Int J Project Manage 12(3):133–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(94)90027-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Zhang Z, Jia M (2010) Procedural fairness and cooperation in public-private partnerships in China. J Manage Psychol 25(5):513–538. https://doi.org/10.1108/02683941011048409

    Article  Google Scholar 

  108. Colquitt JA, Wesson MJ, Porter COLH, Conlon DE, Ng KY (2001) Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. J Appl Psychol 86(3):425–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  109. Luo Y (2007) The independent and interactive roles of procedural, distributive, and interactional justice in strategic alliances. Acad Manage J 50(3):644–664. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.25526452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Bies RJ, Shapiro DL (1987) Interactional fairness judgments: the influence of causal accounts. Soc Justice Res 1(2):199–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01048016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. Aibinu AA, Ling FYY, Ofori G (2011) Structural equation modelling of organizational justice and cooperative behaviour in the construction project claims process: contractors’ perspectives. Constr Manage Econ 29:463–481. https://doi.org/10.1080/01446193.2011.564195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  112. Fisher R (1983) Negotiating power: getting and using influence

    Google Scholar 

  113. Emerson RM (1962) Power-dependence relations 27(1):31–41

    Google Scholar 

  114. Blau P (2017) Exchange and power in social life. In: Exchange and power in social life. Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  115. Salancik GR, Pfeffer J (1977) Who gets power—and how they hold on to it: a strategic-contingency model of power. Organ Dyn (Winter):3–21

    Google Scholar 

  116. Wolfe RJ, McGinn KL (2005) Perceived relative power and its influence on negotiations. Group Decis Negot 14(1):3–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10726-005-3873-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  117. Lawler EJ (1986) Bilateral deterrence and conflict spiral: a theoretical analysis (iii). https://doi.org/10.1108/s0882-6145_2014_0000031014

  118. Lawler EJ, Ford RS, Blegen MA (1988) Coercive capability in conflict: a test of bilateral deterrence versus conflict spiral theory author. Soc Psychol Q 51(2):93–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  119. Iklé (1967) How nations negotiate. Praeger

    Google Scholar 

  120. Chow PT, Cheung SO, Ka Wa Y (2015) Impact of trust and satisfaction on the commitment-withdrawal relationship. J Manage Eng 31(5):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000331

    Article  Google Scholar 

  121. Cohen A (2007) Commitment before and after: an evaluation and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum Resour Manage Rev 17(3):336–354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2007.05.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  122. Saridakis G, Muñoz Torres R, Johnstone S (2013) Do human resource practices enhance organizational commitment in SMEs with low employee satisfaction? Br J Manage 24(3):445–458. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8551.2012.00814.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Pool S, Pool B (2007) A management development model: measuring organizational commitment and its impact on job satisfaction among executives in a learning organization. J Manage Dev 26(4):353–369. https://doi.org/10.1108/02621710710740101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  124. Meyer JP, Allen NJ (1991) A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Hum Resour Manage Rev 1(1):61–89. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230501997_5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  125. Chow PT, Kong F, Cheung SO (2012) Mediating and moderating effect of tension on withdrawal-commitment relationship in construction dispute negotiation. J Constr Eng Manage 138(10):1230–1238. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000528

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. O’Reilly C, Chatman J (1986) Organizational commitment and psychological attachment: the effects of compliance, identification, and internalization on prosocial behavior. J Applied Psychol 71(3):492–499. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.3.492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  127. Bandura A (1977) Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Translating national policy to improve environmental conditions impacting public health through community planning, vol 84, no 2, pp 1–312. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75361-4

  128. Bandura A (2010) Self-efficacy. The Corsini encyclopedia of psychology. Retrieved from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/9780470479216.corpsy0836

  129. Stajkovic AD, Luthans F (1998) Self-efficacy and work-related performance: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 124(2):240–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  130. Bandura A, Cervone D (1983) Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems. J Pers Soc Psychol 45:1017–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  131. Sullivan BA, O’Connor KM, Burris ER (2006) Negotiator confidence: the impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol 42(5):567–581. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2005.09.006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  132. Wood R, Bandura A (1989) Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad Manage Rev 14(3):361–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Marilyn E, Kay C, Anna G (1991) Effects of self-efficacy and post-training intervention on the acquisition and maintenance of complex interpersonal skills. Pers Psychol 44(4):837–861

    Google Scholar 

  134. O’Connor KM, Arnold JA (2001) Distributive spirals: negotiation impasses and the moderating role of disputant self-efficacy. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 84(1):148–176. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.2000.2923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  135. Vroom VH (1964) Work and motivation

    Google Scholar 

  136. Pruitt DG (1983) Strategic choice in negotiation. Am Behav Sci 27:167–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Zetik DC, Stuhlmacher AF (2002) Goal setting and negotiation performance: a meta-analysis. Group Process Intergroup Relat 5(1):35–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430202005001537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Reif JAM, Brodbeck FC (2014) Initiation of negotiation and its role in negotiation research. Organ Psychol Rev 4(4):363–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386614547248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  139. Ren Z, Anumba CJ, Ugwu O (2005) Negotiation in a multi-agent system for construction claims negotiation. In: Agents and multi-agent systems in construction, vol 9514. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203006979

  140. Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2):263–292

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  141. Shalev J (2002) Loss aversion and bargaining. Theor Decis 52(3):201–232. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019674323804

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  142. Liberman N, Idson LC, Higgins ET (2005) Predicting the intensity of losses vs. non-gains and non-losses vs. gains in judging fairness and value: a test of the loss aversion explanation. J Exp Soc Psychol 41(5):527–534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.06.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1991) Loss aversion in riskless choice: a reference-dependent model. Q J Econ 106(4):1039–1061

    Article  Google Scholar 

  144. De Dreu CKW, Carnevale PJD, Emans BJM, Van De Vliert E (1994) Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 60(1):90–107. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1994.1076

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. Ross L, Stillinger C (1991) Barriers to conflict resolution. Negot J 7(4):389–404. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01000332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Mnookin R (1992) Why negotiations fail: an exploration of barriers to the resolution of conflict. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 8(2):235. Retrieved from http://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/ohjdpr8&section=21

  147. Bazerman MH (1983) Negotiator judgment: a critical look at the rationality assumption. Am Behav Sci 27:211–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  148. Neale MA, Bazerman MH (1985) The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviors and outcomes. Acad Manage J 28(1):34–49. https://doi.org/10.5465/256060

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Neale MA, Huber VL, Northcraft GB (1987) The framing of negotiations: contextual versus task frames. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 39(2):228–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90039-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Bazerman MH, Magliozzi T, Neale MA (1985) Integrative bargaining in a competitive market. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 35:294–313

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Construction Dispute Resolution Research Unit, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Sen Lin & Sai On Cheung

Authors
  1. Sen Lin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sai On Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sen Lin .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Kong

    Sai On Cheung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lin, S., Cheung, S.O. (2022). A Note on Intention to Settle. In: Cheung, S.O. (eds) Construction Dispute Research Expanded. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80256-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80256-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80255-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80256-1

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation