Wang, C; Zhang, S; Gao, Y and Li, B (2022) Trust repair in the aftermath of conflict occurrence in construction subcontracting: An intergroup contact perspective. Construction Management and Economics, 40(10), pp. 781-795. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Although trust repair after conflict occurrence is significant for effective work and sustainable relationships in construction subcontracting and contact is inevitable, researchers have yet to examine the relationship between contact quality and trust repair after conflict occurrence. This study investigates the effect of contact quality on Party A’s trust repair after conflict occurrence and the mediating mechanisms of that effect. The authors conducted a questionnaire survey to collect data for hypotheses testing, receiving 310 valid questionnaires from general contractors and subcontractors engaged in construction projects. The results reveal the positive effect of contact quality on Party A’s trust repair after conflict occurrence and the mediating roles of Party A’s feeling of threat and Party B’s self-disclosure in that effect. This study contributes to the trust research and intergroup contact theory. It also offers suggestions for construction subcontracting practitioners to facilitate trust repair after conflict occurrence.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | conflict; construction subcontracting; contact quality; feeling of threat; perspective-taking; self-disclosure; trust repair |
| Index terms: | subcontractor, construction project, practitioner, questionnaire, general contractor, survey, trust repair, subcontracting, hypotheses testing |
| Subjects: | practitioner, data collection methods, organization, psychology, production management, quantitative and statistical methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Research Practice, Project Management, Organizational Design, Supply Chain Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here