Logistic Regression Modeling of Construction Negotiation Outcomes

Construction disputes are always negotiated before other resolution methods are considered. When it comes to negotiation, the tactics used by a negotiator is central in deriving desired outcomes. This paper reports a research that employs logistic regression (LR) to predict the probabilistic relationship between negotiator tactics and negotiation outcomes. To achieve this, three main stages of work were involved. Negotiator tactics and negotiation outcomes were first identified from literature. Then, four LR prediction models with negotiation outcomes as the dependent variable and negotiator tactics as the independent variables were constructed. Finally, these models were validated with an independent set of testing data. These models collectively suggested that: 1) increasing time pressure, taking threats, or subjecting the opponent to reality testing are inductive to “deterioration” negotiation outcomes; 2) providing various options and increasing flexibility would achieve “substantial improvement” in negotiation; 3) relationships between parties could be maintained by fair play; and 4) focusing on information exchange, giving middiscussion summaries, and offering counterproposal could clarify a party´s position. Despite the skepticism over frank and open discussion of the issues and the existence of game plan, the findings of this research do support some well-established negotiation principles—focus on the issue and play down behavioral factors.