Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Values of Apology in Incentivizing Construction Dispute Settlement

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Construction Dispute Research Expanded

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

  • 497 Accesses

Abstract

The enactment of the first-ever apology ordinance (AO) in 2017 provided the impetus to further promote the use of mediation in Hong Kong. The AO aims to alleviate the concern of disputing parties in making apology. This study pioneers the investigation of using apology in construction dispute resolution. The first part of the study has been developed based on Kalman’s Response Restriction Theory. It is proposed that offering an apology would solicit positive responses of the counterpart by overcoming the barriers against settlement of the dispute. Four forms of apology were summarized from literature- ice-breaking, conciliatory, reality-checking and congruence-driving. It is found that congruence-driving apology is the most versatile in moderating positive responses. The second part of the study examines would the AO result in wider use of construction dispute mediation. When the dispute has an emotion element, suggesting apology is an added advice that mediator would display.

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

References

  1. Cheung SO, Cheung HC (2016) Apology ordinance: a push for mediation in Hong Kong. In: RICS COBRA conference, Toronto, Canada, 20–22 Sept 2016

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cheung SO, Pang HY (2013) Anatomy of construction disputes. J Constr Eng Manage ASCE 139(1):15–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ross L, Ward A (1995) Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 21:255–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Allred KG, Mallozzi JS, Matsui F, Raia CP (1997) The influence of anger and compassion on negotiation performance. Organ Behav Hum Deci Process 70(3):175–187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Barry B, Friedman RA (1998) Bargainer characteristics in distributive and integrative negotiation. J Personal Soc Psychol 74(2):345–359

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Carnevale PJ, Isen A (1986) The influence of positive affect and visual access on discovery of integrative solution. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 37(1):1–13

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. De Dreu CKW, Van Kleef GA (2004) The influence of power on the information search, impression formation, and demands in negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(3):303–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Levi DL (1997) The role of apology in mediation. N Y Univ Law Rev 72(5):1165–1209

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kelman HC (1953) Attitude change as a function of response restriction. Hum Relat 6(3):185–214

    Google Scholar 

  10. Illankoon IMCS et al (2019) Causes of disputes, factors affecting dispute resolution and effective alternative dispute resolution for Sri Lankan construction industry. Int J Constr Manage 0(0): 1–11, Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2019.1616415

  11. Cheung SO (1999) Critical factors affecting the use of alternative dispute resolution processes in construction. Int J Proj Manage 17(3):189–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Enshassi A, Choudhry RM, El-ghandour S (2009) Contractors’ perception towards causes of claims in construction projects. Int J Constr Manag 9(1):79–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/15623599.2009.10773123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Korobkin R (2006) Psychological impediments to mediation success: theory and practice. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 21(2):281–290

    Google Scholar 

  14. Festinger L (1957) A theory of cognitive dissonance, 1st edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Ma N (2008) Overconfidence—its theory and implications in dispute resolution. ADR Bull 10(4):1–6

    Google Scholar 

  16. Dunning D, Griffin DW, Milojkovic JD, Ross L (1990) The overconfidence effect in social prediction. J Pers Soc Psychol 58(4):568–581

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lichtenstein S, Fischhoff B, Phillips LD (1982) Calibration of probabilities: the state of the art to 1980. In: Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky, A (eds) Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hastorf AH, Cantril H (1954) They saw a game; a case study. Psychol Sci Public Interest 49(1):129–134

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  20. Ross L (1977) The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: distortions in the attribution process. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 10:173–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Griffin DW, Dunning D, Ross L (1990) The role of construal processes in overconfident predictions about the self and others. J Personal Soc Psychol 59(6):1128–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Ross L, Stillinger C (1991) Barriers to conflict resolution. Negot J 8(4):389–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Osgood CE, Tannenbaum PH (1955) The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychol Rev 62(1):42–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Curhan J, Neale M, Ross L (2004) Dynamic valuation: preference changes in the context of face-to-face negotiation. J Exp Soc Psychol 40(2):142–151

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Ross L (1995) Reactive devaluation in negotiation and conflict resolution. In: Arrow K, Mnookin R, Ross L, Tversky A, Wilson RB (eds) Barriers to conflict resolution, 1st edn. New York, pp 27–42

    Google Scholar 

  26. Lord CG, Ross L, Lepper MR (1979) Biased Assimilation and attitude polarization: the effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. J Pers Soc Psychol 37(11):2098–2109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Taft L (2000) Apology subverted: the commodification of apology. Yale Law J 109(5):1135–1160

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Orenstein A (1999) Apology excepted: incorporating a feminist analysis into evidence policy where you would least expect it. Sw U L Rev 221–239

    Google Scholar 

  29. Department of Justice (2016) Consultation paper enactment of apology legislation in Hong Kong: report and 2nd round consultation, Department of Justice, Steering Committee on Mediation, Hong Kong

    Google Scholar 

  30. Pruitt DG (1981) Negotiation behaviour, 1st edn. Academic Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  31. Li Q, Yin Z, Chong H, Shi Q (2018) Nexus of inter-organizational trust, principled negotiation, and joint action for improved cost performance: survey of chinese megaprojects. J Manag Eng. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000634

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brown JG (2004) Apology: The Role of Apology in Negotiation. Marquette Law Rev 87(4):665–673

    Google Scholar 

  33. Tabak BA, McCullough ME, Luna LR, Bono G, Berry JW (2012) Conciliatory gestures facilitate forgiveness and feelings of friendship by making transgressors appear more agreeable. J Personal 80(2)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Frosch J (1966) A note on reality constancy. In: Psychoanalysis: a general psychology: essays in honor of Heinz Hartmann. International Universities Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  35. Cheung SO, Chow PT, Yiu TW (2015) Performance of mediator tactics in building management disputes. J Constr Eng Manag. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000230

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ring PS, van de Ven AH (1994) Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad Manag Rev 19(1):90–118

    Google Scholar 

  37. Schweitzer ME, Brooks AW, Galinsky AD (2015) The organizational apology. Harvard Bus Rev 44–52

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kelman HC (1996) Negotiation as interactive problem solving. Int Negot 725 1(1):99–123

    Google Scholar 

  39. Burton JW, Sandole JD (1987) Expanding the debate on generic theory of conflict resolution: a response to a critique. Negot J 3(1):97–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Demirdöğen ÜD (2011) A social-psychological approach to conflict resolution: interactive problem solving. Int J Soc Inq 4(1):215–228

    Google Scholar 

  41. Maslow AH (1943) A theory of human motivation. Psychol Rev 50(4):370–396

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Ting-Toomey S, Kurogi A (1998) Facework competence in intercultural conflict: an updated face-negotiation theory. Int J Intercultural Relat 22(2):187–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0147-1767(98)00004-2

  43. Deutsch M (2003) Cooperation and conflict: a personal perspective on the history of the social psychological study of conflict resolution. In: West MA, Tjosvold DJ, Smith KG (eds) International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working, 1st edn. Wiley, San Francisco, pp 9–43

    Google Scholar 

  44. Holtgraves T (1997) Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. J Personal Soc Psychol Personal Process Individ Differ 73(3):624–637

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Burton JW (1998) Conflict resolution: the human dimension. Int J Peace Stud 3(1):1–5

    Google Scholar 

  46. Fraser N (2001) Recognition without Ethics? Theory Cult Soc 18(2–3):21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wolf R (2011) Respect and disrespect in international politics: the significance of status recognition. Int Theory 3(1):105–142

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Murphy M (2011) Apology, recognition, and reconciliation. Hum Rights Rev 12(1):47–69

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Deci EL, Ryan RM (1985) Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour, 1st edn. Plenum Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  50. Deci EL, Vansteenkiste M (2004) Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Recherché di Psicologia 27(1):17–34

    Google Scholar 

  51. Hackman JR, Oldham GR (1976) Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organ Behav Hum Perform 16:250–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nobles M (2008) The politics of official apologies, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  53. Folger R, Cropanzano R (2001) Fairness theory: Justice as accountability. In: Greenberg J, Cropanzano R (eds) Advances in organizational justice, 1st edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, pp 1–55

    Google Scholar 

  54. Adams JS (1965) Inequity in social exchange. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 2:267–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Folger R, Skarlicki DP (1999) Unfairness and resistance to change: hardship as mistreatment. J Organ Change Manage 12(1):35–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Thibaut JW, Walker L (1975) Procedural justice: a psychological perspective, 1st edn. Erlbaum, Hillsdale

    Google Scholar 

  57. Wright M (2004) The British journal of criminology. Br J Criminol 44(2):290–292

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Schweiger DM, DeNisi AS (1991) Communication with employees following a merger: a longitudinal field experiment. Acad Manag J 34(1):110–135

    Google Scholar 

  59. Bronfenbrenner U (1961) The mirror image in Soviet- American relations: a social psychologist’s report. J Soc Issues 17(3):45–56

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Hofbauer J, Sigmund K (1998) Evolutionary games and population dynamics, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  61. Sigmund K (2010) The calculus of selfishness, 1st edn. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  62. Han TA, Pereira LM, Santos FC, Lenaerts T (2013) Good agreements make good friends. Sci Rep 3(2695):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  63. Nesse RM (2001) Evolution and the capacity for commitment. Russell Sage Foundation series on trust, 1st edition, Russell Sage, New York

    Google Scholar 

  64. Witvliet CVO, Worthington EL, Wade NG (2002) Victims’ heart rate and facial EMG responses to receiving an apology and restitution. Psychophysiol Suppl 39:88

    Google Scholar 

  65. Robbennolt JK (2006) Apologies and settlement levers. J Empir Leg Stud 3(2):333–373

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Darby BW, Schlenker BR (1982) Children’s reactions to apologies. J Pers Soc Psychol 43(4):742–753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Bennett M, Earwaker D (1994) Victim’s response to apologies: the effects of offender responsibility and offense severity. J Soc Psychol 134(4):457–464

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Hodgins HS, Liebeskind E (2003) Apology versus defence: antecedents and consequences. J Exp Soc Psychol 39:297–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. James LR, Brett JM (1984) Mediators, moderators, and tests for mediation. J Appl Psychol 69(2):307–321

    Google Scholar 

  70. Luo Y, Wang Z, Zhang H, Chen A (2016) The influence of family socio-economic status on learning burnout in adolescents: mediating and moderating effects. J Child Fam Stud 25(7):2111–2119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Mezquita L, Camacho L, Ibanez MI, Villa H, Moya-Higueras J, Ortet G (2015) Five-factor model and alcohol outcomes: Mediating and moderating role of alcohol expectancies. Personal Individ Differ 74:29–34

    Google Scholar 

  72. Vanhalst J, Luyckx K, Raes F, Goossens L (2012) Loneliness and depressive symptoms: the mediating and moderating role of uncontrollable ruminative thoughts. J Psychol 146(1–2):259–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Jaccard J, Turrrisi R, Choi KW (1990) Interaction effects in multiple regression. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, U.S

    Google Scholar 

  74. Fisher RA (1924) On a distribution yielding the error functions of several well known statistics. In: Proceedings of the international congress of mathematics, vol. 2. University of Toronto Press, pp 805–813

    Google Scholar 

  75. Wong PSP, Cheung SO, Leung KY (2008) Moderating effect of organizational learning type on performance improvement. J Manag Eng 24(3):162–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Yiu TW, Cheung SO (2007) A study of construction mediator tactics—Part II: The contingent use of tactics. Build Environ 42(2):762–769

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Judd CM, Kenny DA (1981) Estimating the effects of social interventions, 1st edn. Cambridge University Press, New York, N.Y., U.S

    Google Scholar 

  78. Baron RM, Kenny DA (1986) The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. J Personal Soc Psychol Interpersonal Relat Group Process 51(6):1173–1182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  79. Easterby-Smith M, Thorpe R, Lowe A (1991) Management research: An introduction. Sage, London

    Google Scholar 

  80. Greenberg J, Cropanzano R (2002) Advances in organizational justice, 1st edn. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  81. Axelrod R (1984) The evolution of cooperation, 1st edn. Basic Books, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  82. Kruskal WH, Wallis WA (1952) Use of ranks in one-criterio variance analysis. J Amer Statist Assoc 47(260):583–621

    Google Scholar 

  83. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE (2010) Multivariate data analysis. Seventh, Pearson Education. Seventh. Pearson Education. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2011.02.019

  84. Cheung SO, Yiu TW (2006) Construction disputes inevitable? IEEE Trans Eng Manage 53(3):456–470

    Google Scholar 

  85. Phillips-Alonge O (2019) The influence of partnering on the occurrence of construction requirement conflicts and disputes. Int J Constr Manag 19(4):291–306

    Google Scholar 

  86. Chau KW (2007) Insight into resolving construction disputes by mediation/adjudication in Hong Kong. J Prof Issues Eng Educ Pract 133(2):143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  87. Brogan M, Spencer D (2006) Mediation law and practice. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  88. Cohen C (1992) Mediation: giving law a human face. De Rebus 1992:126–128

    Google Scholar 

  89. Rubin JZ (1981) Introduction. In: Dynamics of third party intervention: Kissinger in the Middle East. Praeger,. New York

    Google Scholar 

  90. Simon H (1972) Theories of bounded rationality, decision and organization. North-Holland Publishing Company

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ladd PD (2000) Mediation, conciliation and emotions. University Press of America Inc., Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  92. Huntington SP (1996) The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order. Simon & Schuster, New York

    Google Scholar 

  93. Fischer G, Ostwald J (2003) Knowledge communication in design communities. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Netherlands

    Google Scholar 

  94. Felstiner WLF (1981) The emergence and transformation of disputes: naming, blaming, claiming. Law Soc Rev 15

    Google Scholar 

  95. Lewicki RJ, Barry B, Saunders DM (2004) Essentials of negotiation. McGraw-Hill Education, New York

    Google Scholar 

  96. Aubert V (1963) Competition and dissensus: two styles of conflict and conflict resolution. J Conflict Resolut 7:26–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Schneider CD (2000) What it means to be sorry: the power of apology in mediation. Mediat Q 17(3):265–280

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Philips BA (1994) Finding common ground: a field guide to mediation. Hells Canyon Publishing, Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  99. Lodge AJ (2001) Legislation protecting confidentiality in mediation: armor of steel or eggshells? Santa Clara Law Rev 41(4):1094–1121

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  100. Lewicki RJ, Bunker B (1995) Trust relationships: a model of trust development and decline. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  101. Lee T (2000) Apology subverted: commodification of apology. Yale Law J 109(5):1135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Callahan R (2005) Facework in mediation: The need for “Face” time. Bepress Legal Series. Working Paper 837

    Google Scholar 

  103. Robbennolt JK (2003) Apologies and legal settlement: an empirical examination. Mich Law Rev 102(3):460–516

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Lucke K, Rigaut A (2002) Cultural issues in international mediation. https://www.nottingham.ac.uk/research/groups/ctccs/projects/translating-cultures/documents/journals/cultural-issues-mediation.pdf

  105. Horton WS, Keysar B (1996) When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition 59:91–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Kagel S, Kelly K (1989) The anatomy of mediation: What makes it work. Bureau of national affairs. Bureau of National Affairs, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  107. Hiltrop J (1989) Factors associated with successful labour mediation. Jossey, San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

  108. Henderson DA (1996) Mediation success: an empirical analysis. Ohio State J Dispute Resolut 11:105–147

    Google Scholar 

  109. Lazare A (1995) Go ahead, say you're sorry. Psychol Today 28(1):40–42

    Google Scholar 

  110. Minow M (1998) Between vengeance and forgiveness: Facing history after genocide and mass violence. Beacon Press, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  111. Adams JS, Freedman S (1976) Equity theory revisited: comments and annotated bibliography. Adv Exp Soc Psychol 9(C):43–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60058-1

  112. Bornstein BH, Schopp RF, Wiener RL, Willborn SL (2008) Civil juries and civil justice: psychological and legal perspectives. Springer, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  113. Walster E, Berscheid E, Walster GW (1973) New directions in equity research. J Pers Soc Psychol 25:151–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  114. Ho B (2005) A theory of apologies. Business (March):1–37. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198238515.001.0001

  115. O’Hara EA (2004) Apology and thick trust: what spouse abusers and negligent doctors might have in common. Heinonline 1(1):8–23. https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-004-015-0003-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Wagatsuma H, Rosett A (1986) The implications of apology: law and culture in Japan and the United States. 20 Law Soc

    Google Scholar 

  117. Plous S (1993) The psychology of judgement and decision making. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The empirical work of this chapter has been reported in a paper entitled “The value of apology in construction dispute negotiation” of the International Journal of Construction Management and a paper “How apology incentivizes construction dispute settlement” of the Journal of Legal Affair and Dispute Resolution in Engineering and Construction. Special thanks to Miss Ka In Yu and Miss Sui Yan Tong in helping with the empirical studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

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

    Sai On Cheung & Liuying Zhu

Authors
  1. Sai On Cheung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liuying Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sai On Cheung .

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

Cheung, S.O., Zhu, L. (2022). The Values of Apology in Incentivizing Construction Dispute Settlement. 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_10

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80256-1_10

  • 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