Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory to Examining the Choice of Tactics in Construction Dispute Negotiation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Construction Dispute Research

  • 2473 Accesses

Abstract

This study investigates the confidence of negotiators in their own ability to successfully use tactics to achieve desired outcomes—a concept defined as negotiation-efficacy that underpins Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. A questionnaire survey was used to measure the frequency of and confidence with which negotiators used negotiating tactics and the achievement of negotiation outcomes. With the collected data, confidence indices were created to reflect the strength of negotiation-efficacy for each negotiating tactic. Relationships of negotiation-efficacy and the achievement of negotiation outcomes were then examined by multiple regression analyses. The findings show that the strength of negotiation-efficacy is significantly related to the achievement of certain negotiation outcomes. In general, for negotiators who have negotiation-efficacy in executing distributive (integrative) tactics, negative (positive) negotiation outcomes are likely.

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 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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

References

  • Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological Review, 84, 191–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37(2), 122–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal system. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1017–1028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1986). Differential engagement of self-reactive influences in cognitive motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 92–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B., & Friedman, R. A. (1998). Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(2), 345–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bazerman, M. H. (1994). Judgment in management decision making. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bordone, R., & Todd, G. S. (2005). Have you negotiated how you’ll negotiate?. Watertown: Harvard Business Publishing Newsletters.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, W. R., & Gall, M. D. (1989). Education research (5th ed.). New York: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard-Bouchard, T. (2001). Influence of self-efficacy on performance in a cognitive task. Journal of Social Psychology, 130(3), 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. A., Carrello, P. D., Vik, P. W., & Porter, R. J. (1998). Change in alcohol effect and self-efficacy expectancies during addiction treatment. Substance Abuse, 19(4), 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cervone, D., & Peake, P. K. (1986). Anchoring, efficacy, and action: The influence of judgmental heuristics on self-efficacy judgments and behaviour. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 492–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S. O., & Yeung, Y. W. (1998). The effectiveness of the dispute resolution advisor system: A critical appraisal. International Journal of Project Management, 16(6), 367–374.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S. O., Yiu, T. W., & Yeung, S. F. (2006). A study of negotiating styles and negotiation outcomes in construction dispute resolution. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(8), 805–814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheung, S. O., Chow, P. T., & Yiu, T. W. (2009). Contingent use of negotiators’ tactics in construction dispute negotiation. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 135(6), 466–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, D. (1993). Negotiation Tactics. Lanham: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Dreu, C. K. W., & Van Kleef, G. A. (2004). The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egaly, A. H., & Crowlely, M. (1986). Gender and helping behavior: A meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin, 100(3), 283–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einhorn, H. J., & Hogarth, R. M. (1978). Confidence in judgment: Persistence of the illusion of validity. Psychology Review, 85(11), 395–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fells, R. (1996). Preparation for negotiation. Personnel Review, 25(2), 50–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, R., Curral, S. C., & Tsai, J. C. (2000). What goes around comes around: The impact of personal conflict style on work conflict and stress. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 32–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funk, R., Ives, M., & Dennis, M. (2007). Reliability: Calculating Cronbach’s alpha. http://www.chestnut.org/LI/downloads/training_memos/Alpha.pdf (Jan. 23, 2009).

  • Giordano, G., Stoner, S., Brouer, R., & George, J. (2007). The influences of deception and computer-mediation on dyadic negotiations. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(2), 362–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17(2), 183–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gross, M. A., & Guerrero, L. K. (2000). Managing conflict appropriately and effectively: An application of the competence model to Rahim’s organizational conflict styles. International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(3), 200–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gulliver, P. H. (1979). Disputes and negotiation: A cross-culture perspective. San Diego: Academic Press Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutkind, D., Ventura, J., Barr, C., Shaner, A., Green, M., & Mintz, J. (2001). Factors affecting reliability and confidence of DSM-III-R psychosis-related diagnosis. Psychiatry Research, 101(3), 269–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis with readings (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Patience Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.). New Jersy: Patience Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegtvedt, K. A., & Killian, C. (1999). Fairness and emotions: Reactions to the process and outcomes of negotiations. Social Forces, 78, 269–302.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heydenfeldt, J. A. G. (2000). The influence of individualism/collectivism on Mexican and US business negotiation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 24(3), 383–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewicke, R., Weiss, S., & Lewin, D. (1988). Models of conflict, negotiation, and third party intervention: a review and synthesis, Ohio State University College of Business, Working paper series pp. 88–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. D. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: Stage of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic & A. Tversky (Eds.), Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases (pp. 306–334). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loosemore, M. (1999). Bargaining tactics in construction disputes. Construction Management and Economics, 17, 177–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loucks-Atkinson, A., & Mannell, R. C. (2007). Role of self-efficacy in the constraints negotiation process: The case of individuals with Fibromyalgia Syndrome. Leisure Sciences, 29, 19–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, R. H., Peppet, S. R., & Tulumello, A. S. (2000). Beyond winning: Negotiation to create value in deals and disputes. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neale, M. A., & Bazerman, M. H. (1985). The effects of framing and negotiator overconfidence on bargaining behaviours and outcomes. The Academy of Management Journal, 28(1), 34–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, K. M., & Arnold, J. A. (2001). Distributive spirals: Negotiation impasses and moderating effects of disputant self-efficacy. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 84, 148–176.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oetzel, J. G. (1998). The effects of self-control and ethnicity on self-reported conflict styles. Communication Reports, 11(2), 133–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olekalns, M., Smith, P. L., & Walsh, T. (1996). The process of negotiating: Strategy and timing as predictors of outcomes. Organizational Behaviour and Human Decision Processes, 68, 68–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. (1991). Strategic Choice in Negotiation in Negotiation Theory and Practice. In J. William Breslin & Jeffery Z. Rubin (Eds.), The Program on Negotiation. Cambridge: Harvard Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G. (1981). Negotiation behaviour. New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruitt, D. G., & Lewis, S. A. (1975). Development of integrative solutions in bilateral negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 621–630.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A. (1983). A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict. Academy Management Journal, 26, 367–368.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A. (2001). Managing conflict in organizations (3rd ed.). Westport: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rahim, M. A., Manger, N. R., & Shapiro, D. L. (2000). Do justice perceptions influence styles of handling conflict with supervisors? What justice perceptions, precisely? International Journal of Conflict Management, 11(1), 9–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rao, A., & Schmidt, S. M. (1998). A behavioural perspective on negotiating international alliances. Journal of International Business Studies, 29(4), 665–689.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ren, Z., Anumba, C. J., & Ugwu, O. O. (2002). Negotiation in a multi-agent system for construction claims negotiation. Applied Artificial Intelligence, 16, 359–394.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schawarz, R., & Peutsch, C. (2001). Negotiation skills development. Invited paper at the IEEE Symposium Extra Skills for Young Engineers, Maribor, Slovenia, October 19, ISBN 86-435-0440-8, pp. 15–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schow, R. L., Seikei, J. A., Chermak, G., Berent, M., & Domitz-Vieira, D. M. (2002). Support for a multiple-factor model of auditory processing. American Journal of Audiology, 11, 10–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharland, A. (2001). The negotiation process as a predictor of relationship outcomes in international buyer-supplier arrangements. Industrial Marketing Management, 30(7), 551–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheppard, B. H., Blumenfeld-Jones, K., & Roth, J. (1989). Informal third-partyship: Studies of everyday conflict intervention. In K. Kressel & D. G. Pruitt (Eds.), Mediation research (pp. 166–189). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, M. L. (1992). Planning your negotiation. Journal of Management in Engineering, 8(3), 254–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steen, R. H., & MacPherson, R. J. (2000). Resolving construction disputes out of court through ADR. Journal of Property Management, 65(5), 58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. E. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal-orientation training on negotiation skills maintenance: what are the mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Psychology, 50, 955–978.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sullivan, B. A., O’Connor, M. O., & Burris, E. R. (2006). Negotiator confidence: The impact of self-efficacy on tactics and outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 567–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, L. (1990). Negotiation behavior and outcomes: Empirical evidence and theoretical issues. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 515–532.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Volkema, R. J., & Fleury, M. T. (2002). Alternative negotiating conditions and the choice of negotiation tactics: A cross-cultural comparison. Journal of Business Ethics, 36(4), 381–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1993). A behavioral theory of labor negotiations: An analysis of a social interaction system. Ithaca: ILR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, R. E., & McKersie, R. B. (1965). A behavioural theory of labour negotiations. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. (2003). Strategic simplification: Toward a theory of modular design in negotiation. International Negotiation, 8(1), 149–167.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weingart, L. R., Hyder, E. B., & Prietula, M. J. (1996). Knowledge matters: The effect of tactical descriptions on negotiation behaviour and outcome. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1205–1217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, S. R., & Putnam, L. L. (1993). Interaction goals in negotiation. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (vol. 13, pp. 374–406). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, H. P. (1991). Negotiation analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Miss Lai Ying Siu for collecting data for the study. The content of this chapter has been published in Volume 138(3) of the Journal of Construction Engineering and Management and is used with the permission from ASCE.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Engineering, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand

    Tak Wing Yiu

  2. Construction Dispute Resolution Research Unit, Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China

    Sai On Cheung

Authors
  1. Tak Wing Yiu
    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 Tak Wing Yiu .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Architectural Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

    Sai On Cheung

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Yiu, T.W., Cheung, S.O. (2014). Application of Bandura’s Self-Efficacy Theory to Examining the Choice of Tactics in Construction Dispute Negotiation. In: Cheung, S. (eds) Construction Dispute Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04429-3_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04429-3_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-04428-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-04429-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation