3.2.5 Majority versus Minority Influence Other influential experiments in social influence include majority and minority influence. In majority influence, individuals compare their personal responses with the sources, without considering their own judgment; this then leads them to conform to the point of view of the majority of those around them. This can also be called group pressure and is similar to herd behavior (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Latané and Wolf, 1981). However, in minority influence, the individual attempts to validate an opposing response, meaning that in doing so, they take their judgment into account and, unlike majority influence, they instinctively convert to the point of view of the minority (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Moscovici, 1980). . Martin et al. (2006) then examined the effects of majority and minority influence and concluded that when attitudes are modified by minority influences, they are more likely to have a consistent behavioral intention, than if attitudes were modified by minority influences. majority influence. Suggesting minority influence produces behavior that is easier to predict than majority influence.3.2.6 ConditioningConditioning is a behavioral theory and process in which an individual's response to a stimulus becomes more predictable and more frequent in a particular environment , usually following a reward ( Port and Finnamore, 2007 ; Encyclopedia Britannica, 2014). This mirrors the study by Song et al. (2012), explanation given previously, which explains that obedience can increase if an individual maintains an identical action in order to obtain a reward. The main conditioning experiment is that of Pavlov's dog, where the dog was classically conditioned. This is a type of learning in which a neutral stimulus, for example a bell, becomes middle of paper......o be compensated for any effect the event has on prices and timing of completion or on a Key Date'. Eggleston (2005) and Rowlinson (2012) both argue that the CE procedure within the NEC3 is profoundly different from variation and change procedures in traditional contracts, such as the JCT. The assessment of the temporal and financial impacts of CEs involves strict temporal procedures, in which the contractor must notify, implement and propose. Under the contract, to ensure that these impacts are not assessed retrospectively, the contractor only has eight weeks from becoming aware of a matter that could become a CE, to notify it. Deadlines may be extended or shortened in agreement with the contractor and the PM. However, if these limits are extended, both parties are entitled to the same extension of time (Trebes and Mitchell, 2005). The CE procedure is described in Figure 4 (page 27).