Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Cleaner Production

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jclepro

Alleviating bias to enhance sustainable construction dispute

management
Keyao Li*, Sai On Cheung
Construction Dispute Resolution Research Unit, Department of Architecture and Civil Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Hong
Kong, People’s Republic of China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Efficient dispute management contributes to cleaner production of construction works. Alleviating bias
Received 11 July 2019 has been identified as an effective way to enhance construction dispute settlement so as to improve
Received in revised form sustainability level of construction projects. In these regards, this study has two objectives. First, a robust
11 September 2019
bias conceptualization in construction dispute negotiation is developed. Data on practice of biased be-
Accepted 12 November 2019
Available online 16 November 2019
haviors in construction dispute negotiation (CDN) were collected from three sources: i) by self-reflection
of disputants; ii) by self-realization of disputants in a dispute negotiation simulation; iii) by observations
Handling editor: Zhen Leng of dispute resolution third-party neutrals. Consistent taxonomies of bias in CDN were obtained, and
these are: preconception, self-affirmation, optimism and interest-oriented. The second objective of the
Keywords: study is to suggest bias minimizing approaches to address the afore-mentioned biases. Bias minimizing
Bias approaches were firstly identified from literatures and their usefulness against biased behaviors was
Construction dispute negotiation evaluated by both the simulation and third-party neutral sample. Three bias minimizing approaches
Contextualized simulation were proposed: strategy-based, attitude-based and process-based. It has been found that strategy-based
Minimizing measures
approach is helpful in dealing with preconception bias and self-affirmation bias. Furthermore, attitude-
Sustainable construction
based approach works to alleviate interest-oriented bias and optimism bias, while process-based
approach is suitable for preconception bias and interest-oriented bias minimization. Successfully cur-
tailing the influence of bias would smooth and shorten the dispute resolution processes and save
valuable resources that can be better deployed for productive uses. Bias minimization in CDN contributes
to sustainability of construction projects in the aspects of economic, environment and social influence.
© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction engineering and construction fields. Most of the studies on sus-

Unprecedented globalization and urbanization stimulate the
boom of infrastructure developments and international construc-
tion business. Construction activities respond to human beings’
increasing pursuit of quality living by transforming natural re-
sources into social benefits (Gan et al., 2015; Carvajal-Arango et al.,
2019). Sustainable construction emphasises the balance between
production and protection, aiming at reducing the undesirable
environmental, economic, and social influence throughout the
whole life cycle of construction projects (Shen et al., 2010; Gan
et al., 2015; Bamgbade et al., 2019). Sustainable construction has
become a promising topic attracting the attention of researchers in
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: edenli2-c@my.cityu.edu.hk (K. Li), SaiOn.Cheung@cityu.edu.
hk (S.O. Cheung).
tainable construction focus on improving construction techniques
to reduce environment pollution (Martens and Carvalho, 2017;
Cianciarullo, 2019; Hammad et al., 2019; Li et al., 2019) and opti-
mizing construction designs and process to achieve energy con-
servation and waste reduction (Chu, 2016; Bamgbade et al., 2019;
Gbadamosi et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2019). However, few reported
studies focus on decision-making performance of construction
contracting parties. Human factor in construction project is an
often neglected area notwithstanding human decisions are one of
the deciding factors on the efficiency and sustainability of con-
struction projects. Due to the complex nature, international con-
struction projects usually require collaboration of contracting
parties with different backgrounds, various expertise and diversi-
fied culture (Cheung and Li, 2019). Disputes can arise in different
phases of construction projects (Cheung and Yiu, 2006; Love et al.,
2010; Cakmak and Cakmak, 2014). This study aims to increase the
sustainability of construction projects by improving the behaviors

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119311
0959-6526/© 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
2 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311
of contracting parties in their settling of construction disputes.
Cognitive bias has been identified as a type of psychological
barrier against dispute settlement (Mnookin, 1992; Ross and Ward,
1995; Hollander-Blumoff and Tyler, 2008; Cheng and Li, 2019).
Biases obviate rational decisions whereby the chance of reaching
successful dispute settlement would be lowered (Thompson et al.,
2000; Guthrie et al., 2002; Guthrie and Sally, 2004; Brett and
Thompson, 2016). Studies of bias in highly complex construction
dispute negotiation (CDN) therefore have great significance to-
wards the well-being of construction projects. Li and Cheung (2016)
first explored the potential of bias happening in construction
dispute negotiation (CDN). It was found that repeated evaluations
were the breeding ground for cognitive biases. Successful bias
alleviation characterizes sustainable construction dispute man-
agement, which further contributes to cleaner production of con-
struction works.
This study introduces the sustainable practice of alleviating
biases in construction dispute negotiation (CDN). With types of bias
in CDN conceptualized and minimized, disputes that may occur
during the whole life cycle of construction projects would be
resolved speedily and smoothly. To this end, construction project
delivery would be conducted efficiently without wasting valuable
time and other resources. Hence, alleviating bias in CDN would
increase the sustainability of construction projects in the following
aspects: 1) economic aspect-minimizing the expenses and costs of
settling construction dispute by smoothing and shortening the
protracted dispute resolution processes (Cheung and Li, 2019); 2)
environmental aspect-saving enormous resources and materials
that would be wasted in the prolonged dispute resolution processes
(Vazquez et al., 2011; Li and Cheung, 2018); and 3) social aspect-
improving the intense relationship between the disputing parties
and enhancing partnership collaboration and healthy community
in construction industry (Xia et al., 2018; Carvajal-Arango et al.,
2019).
Building on the exploratory work by Li and Cheung (2016), this
study aims to first develop a robust bias conceptualization in CDN
and then accordingly suggest bias minimizing measures. This study
is reported in five parts. The first part focuses on bias conceptual-
ization in CDN. The second is about bias minimizing approaches.
The third is the analysis on the usefulness of bias minimizing ap-
proaches. The fourth demonstrates implications on sustainable
construction. The fifth is the conclusion. Flow of the study is pre-
sented in Fig. 1.
2. Bias conceptualization in construction dispute negotiation
(CDN)
Li and Cheung (2016) first explored the potential of bias
happening in construction dispute negotiation (CDN) by examining
the characteristics and theoretical background of cognitive biases.
It was found that the possibility of cognitive biases creeping in
during the repeated evaluations in CDN was real. This study aims to
develop a robust bias conceptualization in CDN with different sets
of data collected from different sources. The first set of data is self-
reflection by the disputants, which was collected in Li and Cheung
(2018) with sixteen identification statements operationalized. The
second set of data is self-realization of the disputants, which was
collected in this study with a designed construction project dispute
resolution simulation. Simulation allows the inclusion of contextual
information, which engenders a decision making environment
closer to reality and makes the choice of action more tangible. The
third set of data was collected from practicing third party neutrals
who would provide more objective assessment on the practice of
biased behaviors by the disputants. More details of the three data
sets are given seriatim.
2.1. Self-reflection of disputants
First set of data is extracted from self-reflection of disputants
collected in Li and Cheung (2018). Bias identification statements
were developed by operationalizing effects of bias into biased be-
haviors. Respondents were then asked to rate on the happening
frequency of these bias behaviors with reference to their own
practice in CDN against a six-point Likert scale of frequency level.
The respondents in Li and Cheung (2018) were approached again
for participation in the simulation as introduced in the next part of
the study. Only the data provided by those respondents who
completed both self-reflection survey in Li and Cheung (2018) and
simulation in this study were used. Profile of the same group re-
spondents to both self-reflection survey and simulation is shown in
Table 1. Responses of the same group (56 respondents) to the self-
reflection survey were extracted as the first set of data.
Based on the first set of data, underlying bias constructs were
explored by principal component factor analysis (PCFA). Varimax
rotation was applied and sampling adequacy and suitability of the
data were supported by Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value of 0.697
(
0.6) and significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity result (<0.001)
(Kaiser, 1958; Cerny and Kaiser, 1977). As suggested by Hair et al.
(1998), eigenvalue greater than one was considered as significant
for factor extraction. In extracting the factor structure, only mani-
festations with factor loadings larger than 0.5 were retained
(Reynolds, 1982; Kannan and Tan, 2005; Matsunaga, 2010). As a
result, a four-factor structure without cross loading was extracted
and shown in Table 2. PCFA extracted four constructs of bias
(Table 2 refers): preconception bias, self-affirmation bias, optimism
bias and interest-oriented bias. Preconception bias describes that
disputants form preconception about the dispute before the
commencement of CDN and they over-rely on the same for sub-
sequent assessments. Once the preconception was formed, it is
hard to erase or change. Self-affirmation bias occurs when dispu-
tants in CDN selectively search and endorse information with the
aim of confirming their held positions, while neglecting other
possible options. Optimism bias represents disputants’ unrealistic
elevated expectation that their requirements would be satisfied.
Besides, singularly focusing on maximizing their own interests and
missing win-win solutions are symptoms of having interest-
oriented bias. Biases hamper effective communication among the
disputing parties in CDN. IBM SPSS version 24.0 was used in this
study.
2.2. Self-realization of disputants through a CDN simulation
Self-reporting data may suffer from the bias inherent with the
subjects. In this connection, the respondents were asked to answer
what they would do in a simulated construction project dispute
resolution situation. The data collected from the simulation is
identified as self-realization to distinguish from the way data were
solicited in the self-reflection survey. Simulation allows the inclu-
sion of contextual information that engenders decision environ-
ment closer to reality. The simulated dispute happened in a land
reclamation project. There are four parts in the simulation. Part A
introduces particulars of the project, including project scope, con-
tract sum and contract period. Part B explains issues in dispute with
detailed arguments and dispute amounts. In Part C, the re-
spondents went through the mediation of the dispute including
preparation before mediation, joint caucus and then private caucus.
In Part D, respondents were asked to describe their decision-
making approaches taken in the simulation by rating the bias
identification statements that were developed by Li and Cheung
(2018) with a seven-point Likert Scale from “1 ¼ Strongly
Disagree” to “7 ¼ Strongly Agree”. Higher scores would suggest
 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311 3

Fig. 1. Flow of the study.

Table 1
Profile of the subjects completed in both self-reflection survey and simulation.

Professional organization Percentage Dispute involved Percentage Years of experience Percentage

Contractor 26.8% Building services work 12.5% Below 5 years 19.6%

Client 37.5% Building (foundation) work 7.1% 5e10 years 46.4%
Consultant 35.7% Building (superstructure) work 46.4% 11e15 years 21.4%
Total 100% Civil engineering work 19.6% 16e20 years 8.9%
Maintenance work 14.3% Above 20 years 3.6%
Total 100% Total 100%

greater potency of happening of the biased behaviors. These bias
identification statements have been modified in contexts with due
regard for the simulation. For example, “I cannot get away with the
assessments made at prior round of resolution of the dispute.” was
changed to “I cannot get away with my claim amount HK$ 1.13
billion made before the mediation stage.”
56 valid responses to the simulation were received out of 105
respondents in Li and Cheung (2018), representing a response rate
of 53.3%. The profile of the subjects participated in the simulation is
shown in Table 2. When extracting the factor structure, PCFA sug-
gests a same four bias constructs as shown in Table 2. The same four
bias constructs were validated with both the first and second Data
Sets.
 4
Table 2
Bias constructs extracted in Data Set One, Data Set Two and Data Set Three.

Manifestations in CDN Data Set 1: Data Set 2: CDN simulation Data Set 3:
Self-reflection survey 3rd Party Observation

Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

1.328a 1.819a 1.540a 5.018a 1.540a 2.857a 1.866a 3.345a 1.313a 2.779a 4.480a 1.778a

K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311

Preconception bias 1. My final assessment has been influenced by the first offer of E. 0.732 0.580 0.807
2. My assessment has been influenced by unsubstantiated 0.774 0.766 0.769
figures raised by E during the resolution process.
3. My decision has been adjusted because of the ambitious 0.766 0.586 0.655
arguments of E.
4. I cannot get away with my claim amount HK$ 1.13 billion 0.540 0.611 0.786
made before the mediation stage.
Self-affirmation bias 5. When receiving new information, I have paid more attention 0.585 0.570 0.741
to the information that is consistent with my prior knowledge of
the dispute.
6. I have inclined to interpret further information as evidences 0.625 0.667 0.732
to justify my assessment of the claim.
7. I search for information that confirms my assessment. 0.840 0.849 0.685
8. I would endorse information that supports my assessment. 0.688 0.847 0.679
Optimism bias 9. I have been very optimistic about the likelihood of winning 0.556 0.646 0.794
irrespective of the arguments of E.
10. I totally believe that the outcome of the resolution will be 0.737 0.679 0.873
good for my party.
11. I am very confident that my ambitious arguments will 0.778 0.699 0.770
succeed.
12. If the mediation fails to reach a settlement, I believe I know 0.661 0.605 0.630
this outcome all along.
Interest-oriented bias 13. I think that E is having bias. 0.712 0.664 0.822
14. If the mediation fails to reach a settlement, I believe E should 0.857 0.862 0.847
take greater responsibility.
15. If the mediation fails to reach a settlement, I believe the 0.506 0.856 0.631
arguments of E during the mediation are unreasonable.
16. If the mediation fails to reach a settlement, I believe the 0.822 0.698 0.502
failure of mediation is inevitable because of the opportunistic
attitude of E.
a
The initial eigenvalues for each factor.
 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311 5

Table 3
Profile of the third party neutral respondents.

Years of experience Percentage (%) Roles in CDN Percentage (%)

Less than 5 years 6% Mediator 42%

5e10 years 11% Arbitrator 53%
11e15 years 7% Adjudicator 3%
16e20 years 17% Others 2%
More than 20 years 59% Total 100
Total 100

Disputes Type Percentage (%) Cause of the disputes Percentage (%)

Building Services Installations 4.5 Risk uncertainty 7.6

Building (Foundation) Work 7.6 Collaboration among the parties 19.7
Building (Superstructure) Work 36.4 Contract incompleteness 42.4
Civil Engineering Work 39.4 Opportunistic behavior 12.1
Maintenance Work 9.1 Affective conflict 1.5
Others 3.0 Others 16.7
Total 100 Total 100

Fig. 2. Practice locations of the respondents.

2.3. Observations of third party neutrals
To explore the bias constructs from a more objective perspec-
tive, the third Data Set was collected from practicing construction
dispute third party neutrals, including accredited mediators, arbi-
trators and adjudicators in CDN. The validated bias identification
statements previously used were distributed to third party neutrals
to solicit their opinion on the frequency of disputants having these
behaviors with a frequency scale from “1 ¼ Never” to “7 ¼ Always”.
As an international business and financial centre, Hong Kong has
comprehensive and reputable dispute resolution services. World’s
leading dispute resolution organizations based in Hong Kong pro-
vided lists of accredited third-party neutrals with varied
backgrounds in terms of nationality, practice location, jurisdiction
of admission and dispute resolution expertise. The contacts of po-
tential respondents were collected from learned societies,
including Society of Construction Law Hong Kong (SCLHK), the
Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre (HKIAC), the Hong
Kong Mediation Accreditation Association Limited (HKMAAL), the
Hong Kong Institute of Arbitrators (HKIAB) and the Hong Kong
Institution of Engineers (HKIE).
The survey was distributed online through email with a cover
letter introducing the background information of the study. In total,
66 valid responses were received out of more than 600 question-
naires distributed. Among the respondents, 76% of them have more
than 15 years’ experience in CDN, nearly 60% of them have worked

Table 4
Magnitude of biases in Data Set One, Data Set Two and Data Set Three.

Bias Magnitude in CDN

Data Set One Data Set Two Data Set Three

Bias type MS (6 point Scale) MS (7point Scale) Rank Bias type MS (7point Scale) Rank Bias type MS (7point Scale) Rank

Pre-conception 2.85 3.22 4 Pre-conception 4.16 4 Pre-conception 4.06 4

Self-affirmation 4.17 4.80 1 Self-affirmation 5.32 1 Self-affirmation 5.05 2
Optimism 3.38 3.86 3 Optimism 4.33 3 Optimism 4.59 3
Interest-oriented 3.40 3.88 2 Interest-oriented 4.38 2 Interest-oriented 5.13 1
6 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311
in CDN for more than 20 years. The profile of the respondents is
shown in Table 3. Practice locations of the respondents have been
presented in Fig. 2.
PCFA was again conducted to explore the constructs of bias
based on the responses received under Data Set Three. KMO value
of 0.68 and significant Bartlett’s test of sphericity result supported
the sampling adequacy and data suitability (Cerny and Kaiser,
1977). Again, only manifestations with factor loadings larger than
0.5 were retained and factor matrix extracted is shown in Table 2.
As a result, a same four bias factors were extracted, indicating that
third party respondents observed the same four types of bias
occurring in CDNdpreconception, self-affirmation, optimism and
interest-oriented. Thus, these four bias sources were further veri-
fied by Data Set Three. The robustness of the bias constructs is
enhanced by the consistent results obtained from different Data
Sets.
2.4. Magnitude of the biases
Magnitude score (MS) was used to indicate the potency of the
four sources of bias (Wong and Cheung, 2004). MS for each source
of bias was calculated as the average of the mean scores of the bias
identification statements under each bias type. MS was calculated
with the following formula:
Pn
j¼1 BSij
MSi ¼
n However, it is harder to observe disputants’ behaviors of biased
where MSi is the magnitude score of bias type i; BSij is the mean
score of the j th bias identification statement of bias type i; n is the
number of bias identification statements in bias type i.
The MSs of the biases were calculated and listed in Table 4. In
Data Set One, the assessment of bias practice was based on a six-
point Likert Scale frequency level. In Data Set Two and Three,
seven-point Likert Scale was employed. Transformation of the as-
sessments in Data Set One was conducted for easy comparison with
the following formula as recommended by statistical handbook
(Little, 2013):
R6  1
R7 ¼ 6þ1
5
where R7 is the rescaled variable, which is 1e7 scale in this study;
R6 is the original scale, which is 1e6 scale in this study.
After the MSs were transformed into a same metric, it can be
noted that the MSs of the biases in Data Set Two (CDN simulation)
are larger than the MSs in Data Set One (self-reflection survey). The
results indicate that with the same group of respondents, use of
simulation made biased behaviors more notable. Besides, the
relative magnitude rankings of the biases remain unchanged for
Data Set Two and Data Set One. Hence, in both Data Set Two and
Data Set One, self-affirmation bias was identified as the strongest
and most frequently-happened bias of disputants. It thus was
confirmed by the disputants that they tended to defend themselves
at the expense of collecting and interpreting information in a
biased way. Interest-oriented bias was ranked as the 2nd strongest,
which represented confession of the disputants about their
interest-maximization strategy. Optimism and preconception were
ranked 3rd and 4th, indicating that although the disputants are
overly optimistic and affected by previously formed perception,
they believe these two types of behaviors happen less frequently
than self-affirmation and interest-oriented tendency.
The MSs of the biases as observed in Data Set Three were
calculated and shown in Table 4. The four types of bias in Data Set
Three have higher MSs than these obtained in Data Set One
suggesting that 3rd party neutrals in CDN observed a higher fre-
quency of happening of biased behaviors as compared to the self-
reported results. It could also be explained by the inclusion of
contextual information whereby the respondents can more readily
relate to their practices. In other words, contextual information of
CDN scenario makes biased behaviors more conspicuous. Third
party neutrals’ responses were based on their observations of
disputing parties’ biased practices in real CDN situations. Thus, it is
understandable that the third-party neutrals observed more
frequent happening of biased behaviors than the self-reflection of
the disputants in Data Set One. Besides, disputants may have the
tendency to project positive self-image whereby they were more
reluctant to admit that they had made biased decisions (Edwards,
1957; Phillips and Clancy, 1972). Their self-reflection on their
biased behaviors in Data Set One may have been discounted. Be-
sides, the bias magnitude ranking in Data Set Three is slightly
different from the results in Data Set Two and Data Set One. Third
party neutrals consider that interest-oriented bias rather than self-
affirmation is the strongest bias displayed by disputants. It sounds
reasonable when the nature of these two biases are considered.
Self-affirmation bias focuses on disputants’ suboptimal choices in
information searching and interpretation. Interest-oriented bias
explains why aggression is used even without justifiable causes.
Interest-oriented bias is thus more notable and observable. For
example, it is easier for the third party neutral to objectively
observe that the disputants are bargaining for their self-interest by
(1) insisting on their positions without any will to compromise.
information analysis as these are mental processes.
To summarize the findings for objective one, with three
different data sets, four types of bias in CDN have been identified
and supported. The following section of the paper deals with the
work for the accomplishment of objective two.
3. Bias minimizing approaches
For objective two of this study, a literature review was con-
ducted and identified four bias minimizing approaches: 1) allow
adequate time and effort in making decisions; 2) consider the
(2) opposite and question oneself; 3) be rational and consider long-
term benefit; and 4) dispute resolution mechanism design. These
approaches were further operationalized into twenty bias mini-
mizing measures. The afore-mentioned bias minimizing measures
and their respective references are listed in Table 5.
These bias minimizing approaches collected from literatures
were validated in this study. Bias minimizing measures were
incorporated in the CDN simulation in section 2.2 as consulting
mediators’ suggestions. In Part D of the simulation, respondents
were asked to evaluate the usefulness of these bias minimizing
measures from “1 ¼ Helpless” to “7 ¼ Absolutely helpful”. The
practicality of these bias minimizing measures was also considered
by the practicing third party neutrals in section 2.3. Third party
neutrals were asked to comment on the usefulness of these mea-
sures with the same scale. With the ratings by the disputants and
third party neutrals, the relative helpfulness of these bias mini-
mizing measures were calculated. The helpfulness index (HI) of
each single bias minimizing measure was formulated as (Johnson
and Bhattacharyya, 1996; Ezeh et al., 2013):
P7
i¼1 ðai *xi Þ
Helpfulness Index ¼ P7 (3)
6 i¼1 xi
Where ai ¼ constant expressing the weight assigned to the i th
response; ai ¼ 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,6 for i ¼ 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, respectively;
Table 5
Usefulness of bias minimizing approaches and measures.

Bias minimizing approaches and measures References HIs HIs

Data Set Two Data Set
(Rank) Three
(Rank)

✓ Strategy-based (for Preconception bias & Self-affirmation bias):

 Approach 1: Allow adequate time and effort in making decisions
A 40.10 (2) 47.6 (2)
1. Disputants should allow adequate time for making decision to avoid premature Chapman and Johnson (2002); Mussweiler et al. (2004); Epley and Gilovich (2006); 40.17 47.17
closure of thinking. Croskerry et al. (2013)
2. Disputants should review the case and the possible bottom line of the counterpart Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001); Croskerry et al. (2013) 42.17 43.50
when a very low offer was forwarded.
3. Disputants should check the accuracy of the evidences provided by the counterpart. Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001); Croskerry et al. (2013) 43.83 52.00

K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311

4. Disputants should delay forming an assessment until all the available information has Fisher et al. (2011); Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001) 34.33 45.00
been considered.
5. Disputants should be open to other alternatives even after a first assessment about the Anderson (1982); Heiman (1990); Hammond et al. (1998); Bentz et al. (2004) 40.00 50.50
dispute has been formed.
 Approach 2: Consider the opposite and question oneself
A 38.38 (3) 46.6 (3)
6. Disputants should consider information that may work against a prior assessment. Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001); Schulz-Hardt et al. (2002); Kray and Galinsky (2003) 37.83 45.83
7. Disputants should readily question the soundness of a prior assessment. Koriat et al. (1980); Hoch (1985); Kennedy (1995); Epley and Gilovich (2006) 37.83 47.00
8. Disputants should review the reasons of the counterpart. Koriat et al. (1980); Bazerman and Neale (1982); Mussweiler et al. (2000); Larrick (2004) 42.33 49.50
9. Disputants should ask for feedbacks and assistance from third party neutral. Alexander (1980); Landa et al. (2006) 35.50 44.17

✓ Attitude-based (for Interest-oriented bias & Optimism bias):

 Approach 3: Be rational and consider long-term benefit
A 40.60 (1) 49.3 (1)
10. Disputants should consider mutually beneficial trade-offs between the parties. Lyons (2009); Bazerman et al. (2000); Drolet and Morris (2000); Fisher et al. (2011); 43.33 51.00
Li and Cheung (2018);
11. Disputants should avoid being emotional. Schwenk and Cosier (1980); Baron (1991); Forgas (1995); Hastie (2001); Fisher et al. 45.17 53.33
(2011)
12. Disputants should try to understand the position of their counterpart Babcock and Loewenstein (1997); Hammond et al. (1998); Galinsky and Moskowitz 40.83 49.83
by stepping in their roles. (2000);
Galinsky and Ku (2004)
13. Disputants should respectfully listen to their counterpart’s grievances. Babcock and Loewenstein (1997); Hammond et al. (1998); Galinsky and Moskowitz 40.33 49.33
(2000);
Galinsky and Ku (2004)
14. Disputants should consider long-term relationship and future collaboration Baron (1991); Sedikides et al. (1998); Thompson et al. (2000); Soll et al. (2014) 39.83 46.83
with their counterpart in handling the dispute.
15. Disputants should consider the chance of settlement failure. Arkes (1991); Hirt and Markman (1995); Larrick (2004); Sanna and Schwarz (2004) 36.83 48.50
16. Disputants should think about their own responsibilities when the dispute fails to settle. Soll et al. (2014); Williams (2018); 37.83 46.17

✓ Process-based (for Preconception bias & Interest-oriented bias):

 Approach 4: Dispute resolution mechanism design
A 35.38 (4) 36.4 (4)
17. Disputants should receive de-biasing training before participating in resolution processes. Fischhoff and Beyth-Marom (1983); Arkes (1991); Mowen and Gaeth (1992); 33.50 37.33
Thompson et al. (2000); Larrick (2004); Croskerry et al. (2013)
18. To start a new round of resolution, the resolution team should include new members. Larrick (2004); Burke (2007) 34.00 30.17
19. Re-assessment and reconstruction of decisions are required to start a new round of Ashton and Kennedy (2002); Fisher et al. (2011) 36.50 38.50
resolution.
20. A process to ensure needs are reviewed is required at each round of resolution. Ashton and Kennedy (2002); Fisher et al. (2011) 37.50 39.67

7
8 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311
a1 ¼ 0 is assigned to “Helpless”; a7 ¼ 6 is assigned to “Absolutely
helpful”; Xi ¼ the percentage of the degree of helpfulness;
X1 ¼ percentage of frequency of “Helpless” responses;
X7 ¼ percentage of frequency of “Absolutely helpful” responses.
The HIs of these bias minimizing measures were calculated and
shown in Table 5. Helpfulness of each approach was calculated as
the average of the HIs of the bias minimizing measures under the
approach. The helpfulness of these approaches was ranked in
Table 5 as well. According to the seven-level rating scale from
“1 ¼ Helpless” to “7 ¼ Absolutely helpful”, helpfulness indices were
grouped in Table 6 to show the respondents’ evaluation.
From Tables 5 and 6, it can be seen that disputants rated the four
approaches as “Moderately Helpful”. Third party neutrals rated
Approach 1: Allow adequate time and effort in making decisions,
Approach 2: Consider the opposite and question oneself and
Approach 3: Be rational and consider long-term benefit as
“Reasonably Helpful”. Approach 4: Dispute resolution mechanism
design was rated as “Moderately Helpful”. Therefore, these bias
minimizing approaches were validated by both disputants (Data
Set Two) and third party neutrals (Data Set Three).
Besides, both the disputants and third party neutrals gave the
same rankings of the four bias minimizing approaches. They
believe Approach 3: Be rational and consider long-term benefit as
the most helpful comparing to other approaches, thus emotion
control was considered the most instrumental in minimizing bia-
ses. Staying rational, enhancing mutual understanding and
focusing on long-term benefit and reputation were rated as valu-
able suggestions that would curb biased decision makings.
Approach 1: Allow adequate time and effort in making decisions
was ranked as the 2nd helpful, therefore, adequate time and effort
in decision making were confirmed in calming heated disputants
and encouraging a considerate and mature decision. Approach 2:
Consider the opposite and question oneself and Approach 4:
Dispute resolution mechanism design were ranked 3rd and 4th
helpful respectively.
4. Usefulness of bias minimizing approaches
This part of the paper discusses the usefulness of the bias
minimizing approaches with reference to the types of bias identi-
fied for objective one. The discussion was arranged according to the
nature of the bias minimizing approaches. Accordingly, three cat-
egories of approaches are used: strategy-based, attitude-based and
process-based. Table 5 gives the tabulated framework together
with the HIs.
4.1. Strategy-based
Approach one (allow adequate time and effort in making de-
cisions) and approach two (consider the opposite and question
oneself) were grouped into strategy-based approach in minimizing
biases. By taking enough time to review the case and by carefully
considering the offer and evidence provided from the counter
Table 6
Helpfulness groups and indices.
Helpfulness group Helpfulness index (HI)
Helpless 0e14.3
Slightly helpful 14.3e28.6
Moderately helpful 28.6e42.9
Reasonably helpful 42.9e57.2
Very helpful 57.2e71.5
Most helpful 71.5e85.8
Absolutely helpful 85.8e100
project team, disputants would obtain a better picture of the cur-
rent situation and a more holistic view of the construction project.
Making an assessment until all the available information was
considered would avoid disputants from forming an early precon-
ception about the dispute issue. Hence, enough time and effort paid
in making assessment would avoid a premature closure of thinking
and minimize the influence of stubborn preconception. Besides,
readily questioning previously held positions would help contact-
ing parties to objectively review their earlier assessments about the
issue in dispute. Seeking feedbacks and assistance from third party
neutrals (consulting mediators and dispute resolution advisors)
would also help disputants to get an outsider point of view and
jump out of their tendency of self-affirmation. Therefore, approach
one and approach two are strategies helping project contracting
parties obtain a holistic view of the dispute and keep an open-mind
to further information. Preconception bias and self-affirmation bias
would be minimized correspondingly.
4.2. Attitude-based
Approach three (be rational and consider long-term benefit)
minimizes bias by adjusting project contracting parties’ attitude
and restraining their negative emotions in making decisions. This
attitude-based approach is effective in alleviating disputants’
interest-oriented and optimism biased behaviors. By considering
mutual beneficial trade-offs, long-term relationship and potential
future collaboration with the counterpart, project contacting
parties would curb their short-term interest-maximizing tendency.
They would love to work for an amicable partnership to seek long-
run benefits. Besides, when they try to step in counterpart’s role
and understand their positions and grievances, they may be able to
show empathy with the counterpart and agree to look for a win-
win position that is good for both contacting parties. In addition,
by thinking about the possibility of settlement failure and their
responsibilities therein, disputants would calm down and be less
unrealistically optimistic. All in all, when the disputants refrain
from emotional thinking and overly optimistic expectations, they
are more ready for rational decisions in construction dispute
negotiation (CDN).
4.3. Process-based
Approach four (dispute resolution mechanism design) aims to
minimize bias by optimizing the CDN process. This process-based
approach points to the minimization of preconception bias and
interest-oriented bias. By incorporating pre-resolution training,
disputing parties would be reminded of decision making biases.
They would be equipped as more mindful to detect and skip
possible bias minefields. Including new members would bring fresh
new ideas to the CDN team, which would decrease the obstinate
adherence to old positions. Re-assessment and reconstruction of
the decisions at the beginning of a new round of CDN would help
the disputants to re-organize and rethink the information and
assessment in mind. More considerate judgment would be gener-
ated and preconception bias would be mitigated. A process of
reviewing initial needs would help project disputing parties to
realize that the current impasse is not conducive in achieving their
needs. Disputing parties are encouraged to think about other al-
ternatives that would better serve for their essential interests and
at the same time could be accepted by the counterpart.
5. Implications on sustainable construction
This study improves sustainability of construction projects by
enhancing the performance of contracting parties in settling
 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311
construction disputes. Efficient dispute management contributes to
cleaner production of construction works. As biases were identified
as barriers against amicable construction dispute settlement, sus-
tainable practice of alleviating biases in construction dispute
negotiation (CDN) was proposed. Bias minimization in CDN con-
tributes to sustainability level of construction projects in the as-
pects of economic, environment and social influence.
In dispute-prone construction industry, the efficiency of settling
construction dispute largely determines the progress of successful
project delivery. Multi-tiered dispute resolution (MTDR) processes
incorporating alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has become the
mainstream approach in construction dispute resolution (Cheung
and Li, 2019; Li and Cheung, 2016). The devised intention of
MTDR is to resolve construction disputes in the earlier stages of
ADR, without proceeding to latter legal processes of arbitration and
litigation, which are notorious in consuming time and resources.
The advantages of implementing ADR in saving time and cost are
prominent. However, MTDR may not achieve the intended outcome
as repeated evaluations therein create the breeding ground for
biases to creep in (Li and Cheung, 2018). Biases are the barriers
against successful dispute settlement. In this connection, the
practice of alleviating bias in CDN proposed in this study enhances
the efficiency of MTDR processes and saves many construction
projects from time delay and cost overrun due to unresolved dis-
putes. It saves enormous resources and materials from being
wasted in the prolonged dispute resolution processes and con-
tributes to sustainability in economic and environment aspects.
In social aspect, alleviating bias in CDN improves the intense
relationship between the construction contracting parties. Mini-
mizing biases enhances the decision-making performance of the
disputing parties and keeps them in rational courses (Li and
Cheung, 2018). It also reduces their preconception towards the
counterpart and prepares the disputing parties for mutual benefi-
cial win-win positions. When biases are removed, trust relation-
ship, partnership and positive collaboration could be built among
the contracting parties (Wong and Cheung, 2004; Wong et al.,
2005; Chow et al., 2012). Team efficiency, job satisfaction and
employee engagement would also be increased with a positive
working environment (Griffin et al., 2001; Spence Laschinger et al.,
2002). Therefore, the practice of alleviating bias in CDN contributes
to the building of social sustainability and healthy community in
construction industry.
6. Conclusions
As construction industry is dispute-prone, one way to evaluate
the success of construction projects is to look into the efficiency of
construction dispute negotiation (CDN). Moreover, biased decisions
prohibit efficient CDN (Li and Cheung, 2018). Successfully mini-
mizing bias would enhance sustainable construction dispute
management and save valuable resources that would be better
deployed for productive uses. This study proposes sustainable
dispute management practice of alleviating bias in CDN.
Going beyond the conventional approach of obtaining self-
reflection of biased behaviors by disputants, this study developed
robust bias taxonomies in CDN with three different data sets: i)
self-reflection of disputants; ii) self-realization of disputants in a
dispute resolution simulation; and iii) observations of dispute
resolution third party neutrals. Four major types of biases in CDN
were conceptualized and these are preconception, self-affirmation,
optimism and interest-oriented. Based on this, this study contrib-
utes to dispute resolution practices by suggesting bias minimizing
measures respective to the bias conceptualization. Categorically,
three groups of bias minimizing measures were proposed: i)
strategy-based approach is helpful in dealing with preconception
9
bias and self-affirmation bias; ii) attitude-based approach works to
alleviate interest-oriented bias and optimism bias; and iii) process-
based approach is suitable for preconception bias and interest-
oriented bias minimization. Curbing biases would minimize the
expenses and costs incurred in the protracted dispute resolution
processes. Enormous resources and materials could thus be saved
with more effective bias-free decisions. In this regard, efficient
dispute settlement improves sustainability of construction projects
from the economic and environmental perspectives. Besides, alle-
viating bias improves the relationship between construction con-
tracting parties and contributes to the building of social
sustainability and well-being of construction community.
Acknowledgements
The work described in this paper was fully supported by a
HKSAR RGC (project no. 11209118).
References
Alexander, F.G., 1980. Psychoanalytic Therapy: Principles and Application. Univer-
sity of Nebraska Press.
Arkes, H.R., 1991. Costs and benefits of judgment errors: Implications for debiasing.
Psychol. Bull. 110 (3), 486e498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.110.3.486.
Ashton, R.H., Kennedy, J., 2002. Eliminating recency with selfreview: The case of
auditors’ ‘going concern’ judgments. J. Behav. Decis. Making 15 (3), 221e231.
https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.412.
Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., 1997. Explaining bargaining impasse: the role of self-
serving biases. J. Econ. Perspect. 11 (1), 109e126.
Bamgbade, J.A., Kamaruddeen, A.M., Nawi, M.N.M., Adeleke, A.Q., Salimon, M.G.,
Ajibike, W.A., 2019. Analysis of some factors driving ecological sustainability in
construction firms. J. Clean. Prod. 208, 1537e1545.
Bazerman, M.H., Curhan, J.R., Moore, D.A., Valley, K.L., 2000. Negotiation. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 51 (1), 279e314.
Baron, R.A., 1991. Positive effects of conflict: A cognitive perspective. Empl.
Responsib. Rights J 4 (1), 25e36. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01390436.
Bentz, B.G., Williamson, D.A., Franks, S.F., 2004. Debiasing of pessimistic judgments
associated with anxiety. J. Psychopathol. Behav. Assess. 26 (3), 173e180.
Brett, J., Thompson, L., 2016. Negotiation, Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes 136, 68e79.
Burke, A., 2007. Neutralizing cognitive bias: an invitation to prosecutors. NYU
Journal of Law & Liberty 2, 512e530.
Cakmak, E., Cakmak, P.I., 2014. An analysis of causes of disputes in the construction
industry using analytical network process. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sci-
ences 109, 183e187.
Carvajal-Arango, D., Bahamo n-Jaramillo, S., Aristizabal-Monsalve, P., V
asquez-
Herna ndez, A., Botero, L.F.B., 2019. Relationships between lean and sustainable
construction: Positive impacts of lean practices over sustainability during
construction phase. J. Clean. Prod.
Cerny, B.A., Kaiser, H.F., 1977. A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-
analytic correlation matrices. Multivar. Behav. Res. 12 (1), 43e47.
Chapman, G.B., Johnson, E.J., 2002. Incorporating the irrelevant: anchors in judg-
ments of belief and value. In: Gilovich, T., Griffin, D., Kahneman, D. (Eds.),
Heuristics and Biases: the Psychology of Intuitive Judgment. Cambridge Uni-
versity Press, pp. 120e138.
Cheung, S.O., Li, K., 2019. Biases in construction project dispute resolution. Eng.
Construct. Architect. Manag. 26 (2), 321e348.
Cheung, S.O., Yiu, T.W., 2006. Are construction disputes inevitable? IEEE Trans. Eng.
Manag. 53 (3), 456e470.
Chow, P.T., Cheung, S.O., Chan, K.Y., 2012. Trust-building in construction contract-
ing: mechanism and expectation. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 30 (8), 927e937.
Chu, J., 2016. Solutions to sustainability in construction: some examples. Procedia
Engineering 145, 1127e1134.
Cianciarullo, M.I., 2019. Green constructionereduction in environmental impact
through alternative pipeline water crossing installation. J. Clean. Prod. 223,
1042e1049.
Croskerry, P., Singhal, G., Mamede, S., 2013. Cognitive debiasing 2: impediments to
and strategies for change. BMJ Qual. Saf. 22, 65e72 bmjqs-2012e20001713.
Drolet, A.L., Morris, M.W., 2000. Rapport in conflict resolution: Accounting for how
face-to-face contact fosters mutual cooperation in mixed-motive conflicts.
J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36 (1), 26e50.
Edwards, A.L., 1957. The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assessment and
Research. The Dryden Press, New York.
Epley, N., Gilovich, T., 2006. The anchoring-and-adjustment heuristic Why the ad-
justments are insufficient. Psychol. Sci. 17 (4), 311e318.
Ezeh, G.N., Ogbuehi, C.N., Eleke, N., Diala, U.H., 2013. Severity index analysis of the
problems of optical fiber communication in Nigeria: a case study of South
Eastern Nigeria,. Acad. Res. Int. 4 (1), 431e438.
Fisher, R., Ury, W.L., Patton, B., 2011. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without
10 K. Li, S.O. Cheung / Journal of Cleaner Production 249 (2020) 119311
Giving in. Penguin.
Forgas, J.P., 1995. Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychol.
Bull. 117 (1), 39e66. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.1.39.
Galinsky, A.D., Mussweiler, T., 2001. First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-
taking and negotiator focus. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81 (4), 657.
Galinsky, A.D., Moskowitz, G.B., 2000. Perspective-taking: Decreasing stereotype
expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J. Personality Soc.
Psychol 78 (4), 708e724. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.708.
Galinsky, A.D., Ku, G., 2004. The effects of perspective-taking on prejudice: the
moderating role of self-evaluation. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 30 (5), 594e604.
Gan, X., Zuo, J., Ye, K., Skitmore, M., Xiong, B., 2015. Why sustainable construction?
Why not? An owner’s perspective. Habitat Int. 47, 61e68.
Gbadamosi, A.Q., Mahamadu, A.M., Oyedele, L.O., Akinade, O.O., Manu, P.,
Mahdjoubi, L., Aigbavboa, C., 2019. Offsite construction: developing a BIM-
Based optimizer for assembly. J. Clean. Prod. 215, 1180e1190.
Griffin, M.A., Patterson, M.G., West, M.A., 2001. Job satisfaction and teamwork: the
role of supervisor support. J. Organ. Behav. 22 (5), 537e550.
Guthrie, C., Sally, D., 2004. The impact of the impact bias on negotiation. Marquette
Law Rev. 87, 817e828.
Guthrie, C., Rachlinski, J.J., Wistrich, A.J., 2002. Judging by heuristic-cognitive illu-
sions in judicial decision making. Judicature 86 (1), 44e50.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis.
Prentice Hall International, 5th. NY.
Hammad, A.W., Akbarnezhad, A., Wu, P., Wang, X., Haddad, A., 2019. Building in-
formation modelling-based framework to contrast conventional and modular
construction methods through selected sustainability factors. J. Clean. Prod.
228, 1264e1281.
Hammond, J.S., Keeney, R.L., Raiffa, H., 1998. The hidden traps in decision making.
Harv. Bus. Rev. 76 (5), 47e58.
Hastie, R., 2001. Problems for judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol 52
(1), 653e683. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.653.
Heiman, V.B., 1990. Auditors’ assessments of the likelihood of error explanations in
analytical review. Account. Rev. 65 (4), 875e890.
Hirt, E.R., Markman, K.D., 1995. Multiple explanation: a consider-an-alternative
strategy for debiasing judgments. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 69 (6), 1069e1086.
Hollander-Blumoff, R., Tyler, T.R., 2008. Procedural justice in negotiation: Proce-
dural fairness, outcome acceptance, and integrative potential. Law Soc. Inq. 33
(2), 473e500.
Johnson, R.A., Bhattacharyya, G.K., 1996. Statistics: Principles and Methods. Wiley,
New York.
Kaiser, H.F., 1958. The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrika 23 (3), 187e200.
Kannan, V.R., Tan, K.C., 2005. Just in time, total quality management, and supply
chain management: understanding their linkages and impact on business
performance. Omega 33 (2), 153e162.
Koriat, A., Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., 1980. Reasons for confidence. J. Exp. Psychol.
Hum. Learn. Mem. 6 (2), 107e118.
Landa, Y., Silverstein, S.M., Schwartz, F., Savitz, A., 2006. Group cognitive behavioral
therapy for delusions: helping patients improve reality testing. J. Contemp.
Psychother. 36 (1), 9e17.
Larrick, R.P., 2004. Debiasing. In: Koehler, D.J., Harvey, N. (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook
of Judgment and Decision Making. Blackwell Publishing, pp. 316e338.
Li, C.Z., Zhao, Y., Xu, X., 2019. Investigation of dust exposure and control practices in
the construction industry: implications for cleaner production. J. Clean. Prod.
227, 810e824.
Li, K., Cheung, S.O., 2016. The potential of bias in multi-tier construction dispute
resolution processes. In: Chan, P.W., Neilson, C.J. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd
Annual ARCOM Conference 1, 197e205.
Li, K., Cheung, S.O., 2018. Bias measurement scale for repeated dispute evaluations.
J. Manag. Eng. 34 (4), 04018016.
Little, T.D., 2013. Methodology in the Social Sciences. Longitudinal Structural
Equation Modelling. Guilford Press, New York, NY, US.
Liu, H., Sydora, C., Altaf, M.S., Han, S., Al-Hussein, M., 2019. Towards sustainable
construction: BIM-enabled design and planning of roof sheathing installation
for prefabricated buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 235, 1189e1201.
Love, P., Davis, P., Ellis, J., On Cheung, S., 2010. Dispute causation: identification of
pathogenic influences in construction. Eng. Construct. Architect. Manag. 17 (4),
404e423.
Lyons, C., 2009. I Win, You Win: the Essential Guide to Principled Negotiation.
Bloomsbury Publishing.
Martens, M.L., Carvalho, M.M., 2017. Key factors of sustainability in project man-
agement context: a survey exploring the project managers’ perspective. Int. J.
Proj. Manag. 35 (6), 1084e1102.
Matsunaga, M., 2010. How to factor-analyze your data right: do’s, don’ts, and how-
to’s. Int. J. Psychol. Res. 3 (1), 97e110.
Mnookin, R.H., 1992. Why negotiations fail: an exploration of barriers to the reso-
lution of conflict. Ohio State J. Dispute Resolut. 8 (2), 235e249.
Mowen, J.C., Gaeth, G.J., 1992. The evaluation stage in marketing decision making.
J. Acad. Mark. Sci. 20 (2), 177e187. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02723457.
Phillips, D.L., Clancy, K.J., 1972. Some effects of "social desirability" in survey studies.
Am. J. Sociol. 77 (5), 921e940.
Reynolds, W.M., 1982. Development of reliable and valid short forms of the
marlowe-crowne social desirability scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 38 (1), 119e125.
Ross, L., Ward, A., 1995. Psychological barriers to dispute resolution. Adv. Exp. Soc.
Psychol. 27, 255e304.
Sanna, L.J., Schwarz, N., 2004. Integrating temporal biases. Psychol. Sci. 15 (7),
474e481. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00704.x.
Schwenk, C.R., Cosier, R.A., 1980. Effects of the expert, devil’s advocate, and dia-
lectical inquiry methods on prediction performance. Organ. Behav. Hum.
Perform. 26 (3), 409e424.
Sedikides, C., Campbell, W.K., Reeder, G.D., Elliot, A.J., 1998. The self-serving bias in
relational context. J. Personality Social Psychol 74 (2), 378e386. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0022-3514.74.2.378.
Shen, L.Y., Tam, V.W., Tam, L., Ji, Y.B., 2010. Project feasibility study: the key to
successful implementation of sustainable and socially responsible construction
management practice. J. Clean. Prod. 18 (3), 254e259.
Soll, J., Milkman, K., Payne, J., 2014. A User’s Guide to Debiasing.
Spence Laschinger, H.K., Finegan, J., Shamian, J., 2002. The impact of workplace
empowerment, organizational trust on staff nurses’ work satisfaction and
organizational commitment. In: Advances in Health Care Management.
Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp. 59e85.
Thompson, L., Nadler, J., Lount Jr., R.B., 2000. Judgmental Biases in Conflict Reso-
lution and How to Overcome Them, the Handbook of Conflict Resolution:
Theory and Practice, pp. 213e235.
Vazquez, E., Rola, S., Martins, D., Freitas, M., Rosa, L.P., 2011. Sustainability in civil
construction applied in the construction site phase. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ.
144, 265e276.
Williams, J.B., 2018. Accountability as a Debiasing Strategy: Testing the Effect of
Racial Diversity in Employment Committees. Iowa L. Rev. 103, 1593e1638.
Wong, P.S.P., Cheung, S.O., 2004. Trust in construction partnering: views from
parties of the partnering dance. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 22 (6), 437e446.
Wong, P.S., Cheung, S.O., Ho, P.K., 2005. Contractor as trust initiator in construction
partneringdPrisoner’s dilemma perspective. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 131 (10),
1045e1053.
Xia, B., Olanipekun, A., Chen, Q., Xie, L., Liu, Y., 2018. Conceptualising the state of the
art of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry and its
nexus to sustainable development. J. Clean. Prod. 195, 340e353.