3.2.5 Majority and Minority Influence Other influential experiments on social influence include majority and minority influence. In majority influence, individuals compare personal responses to 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 may also be known as group pressure and is similar to herd behavior (Doms & Avermaet, 1979; Latané & Wolf, 1981). However, in minority influence the individual attempts to validate an opposing response, in the sense that while doing so, he considers his own judgment and, unlike majority influence, instinctively converts to the minority point of view (Doms and Avermaet, 1979; Moscovici, 1980). . Martin et al. (2006) subsequently examined the effects of majority and minority influence and concluded that when attitudes are changed by minority influence, they are more likely to have a consistent behavioral intention, compared to when attitudes are changed by the influence of the majority. Suggest that minority influence produces behavior that is easier to predict than majority influence. 3.2.6 Conditioning Conditioning is a behavioral theory and process, in which an individual's response to a stimulus becomes more predictable and frequent within a particular environment, usually as a result of a reward ( Port and Finnamore, 2007; This reflects Song et al.'s (2012) explanation given previously, which explains that obedience can increase if an individual maintains the same action to obtain a reward. The main conditioning experiment is Pavlov's dog, where the dog is classically conditioned state. This is a type of learning in which a neutral stimulus, for example, a bell, becomes......the center of the card......or is compensated for any effect that the event has on prices and completion date or a Key Date'. Eggleston (2005) and Rowlinson (2012) both state that the CE procedure within the NEC3 is profoundly different from the variation and modification procedures in traditional contracts, such as the JCT. Assessing the temporal and financial impact of CEs involves rigorous time procedures, in which the contractor must notify, implement and quote. Within the contract, to ensure that these impacts are not assessed retrospectively, the contractor has only eight weeks once it becomes aware of an issue that could become a CE, to notify it. The deadlines may be extended or shortened by agreement with the contractor and the PM. However, if these limits are extended, both parties are entitled to the same time extension (Trebes and Mitchell, 2005). The CE procedure is outlined in Figure 4 (Page 27).