Construction contracting behaviour (CCB) is the attitude taken by contracting parties in performing a construction contract. It reflects the contracting parties’ attitude and expectations in construction contracting transactions. To this end, cooperative contracting behaviour has long been promoted in view of the perceived benefits. This is because a cooperative working environment can maintain a harmonious relationship among contracting parties, and can allow effective enforcement of contractual rights and obligations (Harmon 2003; Yiu and Cheung 2006). However, the reality is that conflicts are inherent in most construction projects (Bramble and Cipollini 1995; Fenn et al. 1997; Pinnell 1999; Yiu and Cheung 2006; Zack 1995). Construction contracting behaviour remains largely adversarial as reported in a number of industrial reviews (CIRC 2001; Egan 1998; Latham 1994). In this connection, a stream of studies conducted by the construction community has also affirmed the need to overhaul the adversarial approach. These studies include case studies (Bayliss et al. 2004; Bennett and Jayes 1995; Black et al. 1999; Cheung and Suen 2002; Cheung et al. 2003; Sanvido et al. 1992) and identification of critical success factors (AGCA 1991; CIIA 1996; DeVilbiss 2000; Kumaraswamy and Matthews 2000; Li et al. 2000). It has generally been found that adversarial behaviour undermines cooperation among contracting parties and goes against amicable completion of construction projects (Byrnes 2002; Harmon 2001; Harmon 2003). These studies also suggest that cooperation enables synergistic efforts to maximise common interest. It seems there is a mismatch between the confrontational practice and the preferred state of cooperation. This apparent divergence between practice and preference suggests the existence of drivers for both approaches. Drivers mean those strengths and stimuli that motivate cooperative or aggressive moves. This means contracting parties can take a cooperative or aggressive stance in pursuing their goals depending on the significance of the influence of the drivers. For example, where construction contracts are not fulfilling the intended role of establishing the contractual responsibilities of the contracting parties (Dozzi et al. 1996), opportunistic aggressive moves may be adopted. Identification

adopting aggressive moves during their contract administration or to facilitate an environment in fostering cooperative contracting. This is considered as one way of enhancing the soft power of the organisation. With these aims, a three-stage research work was designed in this study. Stage 1, entitled ‘Identification of aggressive and cooperative drivers’, aims to long-list the generic types of aggressive/cooperative drivers and their respective effects on CCB. Taxonomies of aggressive and cooperative drivers were developed in Stage 2 of the study. Based on the results obtained from Stages 1 and 2, Stage 3 involves the use of relative importance rankings to compare the significances of aggressive and cooperative drivers on CCB. Each of these stages is described seriatim.