Trust or fairness is more important:research on the mechanism of contract risk allocation inducing contractor to consummate performance behavior

Figures & data

Figure 1. The research scope and procedure.

Figure 2. Conceptual framework.

Table 1. Characteristics of respondents.

Characteristics	Category	Frequency	Percentage of total (%)
Project role	Client	58	35.37
	Contractor	82	50.00
	Others (consultation, etc.)	24	14.63
Job position	Project manager	16	9.76
	Department manager	54	32.93
	Project engineer	69	42.07
	Others	25	15.24
Education	Master degree or above	66	40.24
	Bachelor degree	78	47.56
	Others	20	12.20
Work experience	Less than 3 years	13	7.93
	3–5 years	17	10.37
	6–10 years	108	65.85
	More than 10 years	26	15.85

Table 2. Items of measurement and reliability and validity analysis.

Variable	Code	Measurement items	References	Loading	Parameters
Risk Liability	RL1	We believe that contract has reasonable distributed the foreseeable risks.	Zhang et al.(Zhang, Zhang, Ying et al. 2016) Xu et al.(Zhichao et al. 2018) Yan et al. (Yan Ling, Liu Liu, Zeng Cheng 2019) Yin et al.(Yilin and Hua 2013) Attila et al.(Attila and Matt 2021) Hwang et al.(Hwang, Zhao, and Gay 2013) Tallaki et al.(Tallaki and Bracci 2021)	0.864	CR = 0.912, AVE = 0.721, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.872
	RL2	We believe that contract distributes the risks to the willing party.		0.81
	RL3	We believe that contract distributes risks to the party that has the best ability to deal with.		0.863
	RL4	We believe that contract risk liability clauses retain flexibility and can cope with unforeseen risks.		0.859
Risk Compensation	RC1	Contract price signed by both parties is reasonable compared with the risks we should bear.	Zhang et al.(Zhang, Zhang, Ying et al. 2016) Xu et al.(Zhichao et al. 2018) Yan et al. (Yan Ling, Liu Liu, Zeng Cheng 2019) Yin et al.(Yilin and Hua 2013) Attila et al.(Attila and Matt 2021) Hwang et al.(Hwang, Zhao, and Gay 2013) Tallaki et al.(Tallaki and Bracci 2021)	0.866	CR = 0.924, AVE = 0.803, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.877
	RC2	The content and scope of contract price adjustment stipulated in contract are reasonable compared with the risks we bear under such circumstances.		0.914
	RC3	If rationalization proposal put forward by us brings benefits to client, the reward provided to us in contract is reasonable.		0.907
Trust Perception	TP1	Client will entrust an important task to us.	Xu et al.(Zhichao et al. 2018) Zhang et al (Shui-bo, Jun-ying, and Zhen-yu 2015) Yin et al.(Yin et al. 2020) Wang et al.(Xueqing 2017) Wu et al.(Wu et al. 2020)	0.844	CR = 0.936, AVE = 0.786, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.909
	TP2	Client will jointly make decisions with us on important issues concerning the project.		0.901
	TP3	Client will consult with us about the project related information.		0.927
	TP4	Client will tell us his development plan		0.872
Fair Perception	FP1	Our income is fair relative to our costs	Zhang et al.(Zhang, Zhang, Ying et al. 2016) Luo (Luo 2007) Du et al. (Yaling, Huiling, and Hong 2016) Lim et al.(Lim and Loosemore 2017) Hatam et al.(Hatam and Rezaei 2021)	0.900	CR = 0.946, AVE = 0.814, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.924
	FP2	Our income is fair relative to the work we have done on the project		0.912
	FP3	Our income is fair in relation to our obligations		0.902
	FP4	Our income is fair in relation to our efforts on the project		0.894
Consummate Performance Behavior	CPB1	We will actively provide extra work beyond the scope of contract for the project free of charge.	Yan et al.(Ling, Liang, and Yan 2020, Yan and Guo 2020) Lim et al.(Lim and Loosemore 2017) Anvuur et al.(Anvuur, Kumaraswamy, and Asce 2012) Richardson et al.(Richardson et al. 2021)	0.742	CR = 0.941, AVE = 0.764, Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.921
	CPB2	We will actively internalize and restrain project risks and reduce risk losses.		0.886
	CPB3	We will take the initiative to notify client of any drawing errors or loopholes in contract.		0.876
	CPB4	We will actively help participants who need to adapt to the construction environment.		0.94
	CPB5	We will actively put forward suggestions conducive to the construction of the project		0.911

Table 3. Correlation matrix and the square root of AVE of factors.

Code	RD	RC	TP	FP	CPB
RL	0.849
RC	0.770	0.896
TP	0.576	0.575	0.886
FP	0.705	0.736	0.665	0.902
CPB	0.51	0.632	0.75	0.638	0.874

Note. Bold values on the diagonal represent the square root of AVE.

Table 4. Cross loadings for individual measurement items.

Code	RL	RC	FP	TP	CPB
RL1	0.864	0.645	0.545	0.632	0.401
RL2	0.81	0.538	0.394	0.514	0.399
RL 3	0.863	0.684	0.427	0.525	0.411
RL 4	0.859	0.727	0.56	0.693	0.509
RC1	0.678	0.866	0.544	0.706	0.577
RC2	0.692	0.914	0.495	0.613	0.552
RC3	0.697	0.907	0.501	0.654	0.568
TP1	0.441	0.399	0.844	0.546	0.555
TP2	0.524	0.508	0.901	0.634	0.655
TP3	0.572	0.548	0.927	0.633	0.675
TP4	0.495	0.561	0.872	0.545	0.751
FP1	0.684	0.718	0.616	0.9	0.569
FP2	0.629	0.684	0.618	0.912	0.623
FP3	0.62	0.625	0.578	0.902	0.569
FP4	0.609	0.624	0.586	0.894	0.536
CPB1	0.478	0.545	0.595	0.513	0.742
CPB2	0.501	0.609	0.679	0.591	0.886
CPB3	0.399	0.495	0.678	0.562	0.876
CPB4	0.443	0.566	0.683	0.588	0.94
CPB5	0.409	0.542	0.633	0.525	0.911

Figure 3. Graphical representation of path coefficient and inspection results.

Table 5. Path coefficient and inspection results.

Hypothesis	Path	Path coefficients	T-statistics	P value	Inference
H1a	RL → CPB	−0.171	1.364	0.173	Not support
H1b	RC → CPB	0.344	2.293	0.022	Supported
H2a	RL → TP	0.329	2.616	0.009	Supported
H2b	RC → TP	0.322	2.640	0.009	Supported
H3a	RL → TP → CPB	0.186	2.425	0.016	Supported
H3b	RC → TP → CPB	0.182	2.538	0.011	Supported
H4a	RL → FP	0.340	2.855	0.004	Supported
H4b	RC → FP	0.475	4.159	0.000	Supported
H5a	RL → FP → CPB	0.044	1.213	0.226	Not support
H5b	RC → FP → CPB	0.061	1.018	0.309	Not support

Note. RL, risk liability; RC, risk compensation; CPB, consummate performance behavior; TP, trust perception; FP, fair perception.

Zhang, S., S. Zhang, and G. Ying. 2016. “Contractual Governance: Effects of Risk Allocation on Contractors’ Cooperative Behavior in Construction Projects [J].” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 142 (6): 6. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001111.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhichao, X., Y. Yilin, L. Dahui, and J. B. Glenn. 2018. “Owner’s Risk Allocation and Contractor’s Role Behavior in A Project: A Parallel-mediation Model [J].” Engineering Management Journal 30 (1): 14–23. doi:10.1080/10429247.2017.1408388.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yan Ling, Liu Liu, Zeng Cheng. 2019. “The Influence of Contract Risk Sharing Clause on the Contractors’ Fairness Perception—An Experimental Study under the Theory of Multiple Reference Points [J].” Journal of Beijing Institute of Technology (Social Sciences Edition) 21 (2): 67–77. doi:10.15918/j.jbitss1009-3370.2019.1319.

 Google Scholar

Yilin, Y., and Z. H. A. O. Hua. 2013. “A Study of Risk Allocation Measurement of Construction Project: Model Construction, Development of Scale and Validity Test [J].” Forecasting 32 (4): 8–14.

 Google Scholar

Attila, A., and E. Matt. 2021. “Investments in Social Ties, Risk Sharing, and inequality[J].” The Review of Economic Studies 88 (4): 1624–1664. doi:10.1093/RESTUD/RDAA073.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hwang, B. G., X. Zhao, and M. Gay. 2013. “Public Private Partnership Projects in Singapore: Factors, Critical Risks and Preferred Risk Allocation from the Perspective of contractors[J].” International Journal of Project Management 31 (3): 424–433. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2012.08.003.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tallaki, M., and E. Bracci. 2021. “Risk Allocation, Transfer and Management in public–private Partnership and Private Finance Initiatives: A Systematic Literature review[J].” International Journal of Public Sector Management 34 (7): 709–731. doi:10.1108/IJPSM-06-2020-0161/full/html.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shui-bo, Z. H. A. N. G., C. H. E. N. Jun-ying, and H. U. Zhen-yu. 2015. “Effect of Contract on Contractor’s Cooperative Behavior in Construction Project: Trust as a Mediator [J].” Journal of Engineering Management, no. 4: 6–11. doi:10.13991/j.cnki.jem.2015.04.002.

 Google Scholar

Yin, Y., Q. Lin, W. Xiao, and H. Yin. 2020. “Impacts of Risk Allocation on Contractors’ Opportunistic Behavior: The Moderating Effect of Trust and Control [J].” Sustainability 12 (22): 9604. doi:10.3390/su12229604.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Xueqing, W. 2017. “Xu Shusheng and Xu Zhichao, Employer’s Risk Allocation and Contractor’s Behavior in Project Organization: Parallel Mediating Effect of Contractor’s Feeling Trusted and Contractor’s Trust [J].” Management Review 29 (5): 131–142. doi:10.14120/j.cnki.cn11-5057/f.2017.05.012.

 Google Scholar

Wu, G., H. Li, and C. Wu. 2020. “How Different Strengths of Ties Impact Project Performance in Megaprojects: The Mediating Role of trust[J].” International Journal of Managing Projects in Business 13 (4): 889–912. doi:10.1108/IJMPB-09-2019-0220.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Luo, Y. 2007. “The Independent and Interactive Roles of Procedural, Distributive, and Interactional Justice in Strategic Alliances [J].” The Academy of Management Journal 50 (3): 644–664. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2005.04.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Du, Y., H. Li, and H. Ke. 2016. “Development and Verification of the Scales for Perceived Justice of Contractors in Construction Project in China Context [J].” Journal of Systems & Management 25 (1): 165–174. doi:10.05.2542.2016/01.0165-10.

 Google Scholar

Lim, B. T., and M. Loosemore. 2017. “The Effect of inter-organizational Justice Perceptions on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Construction Projects [J].” International Journal of Project Management 35 (2): 95–106. doi:10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.10.016.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hatam, A., and S. Rezaei “Investigating of the Relationship between Mentoring and Job Satisfaction with Regard to the Mediating Role of Organizational Justice and Commitment in Nurses.” 2021.

 Google Scholar

Ling, Y., G. Liang, and N. Yan. 2020. “Understanding Construction Contractors’ Intention to Undertake Consummate Performance Behaviors in Construction Projects [J].” Advances in Civil Engineering. doi:10.1155/2020/3935843.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yan, L, and L. Guo. 2020. “Research on Influencing Factors of Consummate Performance Behaviors: A Configurational Approach [J].” Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering 19 (6): 559–573. doi:10.1080/13467581.2020.1761817.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Anvuur, A. M., M. M. Kumaraswamy, and M. Asce. 2012. “Measurement and Antecedents of Cooperation in Construction [J].” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 138 (7): 797–810. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000498.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Richardson, H. A., S. G. Taylor, D. H. Kluemper, and T. Little. 2021. “and Too Much Authority?haring: Differential Relationships with Psychological Empowerment and In-role and Extra-role Performance [J].” Journal of Organizational Behavior 42 (8): 1099–1119. doi:10.1002/job.2548.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

All data, models, or code that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request ([email protected]).