Non Conformity

3.1 Introduction
This chapter reviews current literature. The original psychological, behavioural theories will be reviewed in part one, in relation to adherence to procedures. Part two of the literature review explains the change procedures under the NEC3 contract as well as criticisms of the procedure, for which this project is seeking to find a framework.
The aim of this chapter is to seek the main reasons for people’s behaviour and adherence, leading to a broader knowledge of the subject and to identify key items to be incorporated into the framework, making the procedure easier to follow.
3.2 Part 1: Non-adherence to Procedures
3.2.1 Non-Adherence and Conformity
Oxford dictionary (2014) defines adherence as ‘Someone who supports a particular party, person or set of ideas’. Tidey (2003) supports this definition and states that within a construction tender situation, adhering means the tender is carried out meticulously in line with rules and regulations. Conformity, a similar concept to adherence, is defined by the Oxford dictionary (2014) as ‘behaviour in accordance with socially accepted conventions’ and Myers (2010) has a comparable definition of ‘the change of actions or attitudes caused by pressure from some real or notional groups’. Non- conformity, on the other hand, is defined by the Oxford dictionary (2014) as ‘Failure or refusal to conform to a prevailing rule or practice’.
Social influence has focussed on situations where the position of another individual is in conflict with the private position of the individual (Allen, 1965, 1975), and the area is known as the study of conformity. Due to humans being social, conformity is common as we find it easy to copy the behaviours of others (Alquist et al., 2013), it is ...

... middle of paper ...

...nd that what mattered when carrying out the killings was whether the method of killing reduced the perpetrators senses (Russell and Gregory, 2007). Before the introduction of gas killings, Jews were shot by Nazi Soldiers, however, progress was hindered as soldiers were deeply traumatized after carrying out the shootings (Lifton, 1986; Rhodes, 2002). This forced a re-think, and it became apparent that shooting was too stressful, and a more ‘humane’ way had to be found (Hilberg, 1961). The solution was to use gas chambers, as this meant the perpetrators could not hear or see the consequences of their actions (Hilberg, 1961), meaning that what Milgram (1964) found to be the most perpetual stimulator- a situation that requires the perpetrator to touch their victim- was avoided, therefore, leading to less dis-obedience from the Nazi soldiers (Russell and Gregory, 2007).