Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

psych 456: social psychology > Final Exam Concepts > Flashcards

Final Exam Concepts Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

implicit/automatic cognition

A

Involuntary, uncontrollable, and (at times) unconscious. Governed by habit.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

explicit/controlled cognition

A

Our conscious evaluation of a particular target object. Voluntary & effortful.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

unconscious behavioral guidance systems

A
  1. Environmental/Contextual features
  2. Evaluations of others & objects or motivational states or perceptual system
  3. Behavioral responses
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

automaticity

A

The influence that external stimuli and events in one’s immediate environment has on automatic cognition (often without one’s knowledge or awareness)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

motivated cognition

A

People motivated to arrive at a particular conclusion often attempt to seek out information that supports their desired beliefs (often able to provide reasonable justification)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

cultural cognition theory (Kahan & Braman, 2006)

A

Tendency of individuals to form beliefs about society that reflect and reinforce their cultural worldview or groups they belong to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

complex ‘invisible’ trauma (examples)

A

-Scapegoating
-Parentification (Child is not only own parent, but parent to parents)
-Emotionally unavailable parents
-Enmeshment (Cannot separate from child; Limit independence)
-Competition (Jealous or threatened by children’s success, competence, or beauty)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

ACES & self-concept (Wong et al., 2019)

A

Both # and types of ACES associated with mental health, physical health, & identity clarity (greater ACES => greater identity uncertainty)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

contingencies of self-worth (Crocker & Wolfe, 2001)

A

Specific domains in which people evaluate their self-worth (appearance, approval of others, academic achievement)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

implicit theory of the nature of human attributes (Dweck & Molden, 2005)

A

entity theorists & fixed mindsets vs. incremental theorists & growth mindsets

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

entity theorists (fixed mindset)

A

Attributes are fixed, concrete, internal entities

More likely to focus on dispositional attributions; More rigid in judgments of self & others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

incremental theorists (growth mindset)

A

Human attributes are dynamic qualities that can be changed or developed

More likely to focus on situational attributions; Less rigid in judgments of self & others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

psychology of class & SES

A

Middle & upper class individuals are more likely to think in individualistic ways (Upper class/White => Status & competition)

Working class are more likely to think in interdependent ways (Working class/Racial minorities)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988)

A

The overall goal of the self-system is to protect an image of self-integrity & adequacy (people want to feel that they’re a good person)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

“tools” for self-protection

A

-Self-serving bias
-False consensus
-False uniqueness
-Self-handicapping
-Unrealistic optimism
-Self-presentation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

self-serving bias

A

Tendency to perceive oneself favorably

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

false consensus

A

Tendency to overestimate the commonality one’s opinion & one’s undesirable or unsuccessful behaviors

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

false uniqueness

A

Underestimating the commonality of our own abilities

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

self-handicapping

A

Creating obstacles/excuses before performance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

unrealistic optimism

A

Unrealistically positive views of things that will happen to you

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

self-presentation

A

Strategies people use to shape what others think of them

Three purposes:
-Obtain a desirable resource
-‘Construct’ self-image
-Help others know how we expect to be treated (enables smoother interactions)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

social comparison theory

A

The process through which people come to know themselves by observing (downward vs. upward)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

downward social comparison

A

Comparing to those less well off

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

upward social comparison

A

Comparing to those who are better off

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

naive realism

A

The belief that our perspective of the way things are is the way the world truly is; We are without bias & error

We believe:
-We are more objective than others & less affected by biases
-Our point of view is exactly right

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

cognitive dissonance

A

Aversive mental state of discomfort people want to alleviate resulting from conflicting attitudes, beliefs, & behaviors (occurs only when the inconsistency is made salient/noticeable/important)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

routes for resolving cognitive dissonance:

A

-Change our behavior (to be consistent with attitudes/beliefs)
-Change attitudes/beliefs (to be consistent with behaviors)
-Add new cognitions/thoughts (that are consistent with the behavior AND attitudes/beliefs)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

moral hypocrisy

A

We often apply strict moral standards to other people, but do not live to those same standards

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Cognitive-affective personality system (CAPS)

A

Behavior is best explained by if-then behavior profiles (someone does X in A situations, but Y in B situations).

Demands of situations explain behavioral consistency across time.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

social norms

A

Rules & standards that are understood within a situation or by a group

Guide or constrain social behaviors without the force of law

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

descriptive (social) norms

A

The perception of where the group is (what most others are doing)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

injunctive/prescriptive (social) norms

A

Perception of what the desirable attitude or behaviors of a group are (what most other approve or disapprove of)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

normative influence

A

To be liked & accepted by other people (often occurs when the situation is NOT ambiguous)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

informational influence

A

To solve uncertainty & get information about what is the right thing to do

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

factors that increase informational influence:

A

-Crisis (act immediately w/little info)
-When others are experts
-When being accurate is important

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

group status & integration preferences (Hehman et al., 2011)

A

When group was MAJORITY, they had ASSIMILATIONIST preference for minority group (we are all the same, so there’s no need to recognize unique identities)

When group was MINORITY, they had PLURALISTIC/MULTICULTURAL preferences (we are all different)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

five steps to inhumanity via identity (Reicher et al., 2008):

A
  1. Create a cohesive in-group
  2. Exclusion (Place targets outside the in-group)
  3. Threat (Other groups are a danger to us)
  4. Virtue (Represent the in-group as uniquely good)
  5. Celebration (Celebrate inhumanity as defense of virtue)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

the social cure (Haslam et al., 2009)

A

-Identity is central to mental & physical health
—Ex) Social support & mental health
Identities can be used as a psychological resource
-Experiences are enhanced in group-settings
—Provide common direction, meaning, & purpose

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

fundamental attribution error

A

The tendency to overestimate dispositional influences & underestimate situational influences for the behaviors of others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

shifting context & self-categorization (David & Turner, 1999)

A

Context shifts how we define ourselves (self-categorization) and (as a result) ‘who’ constitutes the ‘We’ in different situations

Your identity isn’t static, but dynamic & responsive to context

41
Q

entrepreneurs of identity

A

Seek to define the meaning of the identity, who belongs (& doesn’t), & what the group wants (or doesn’t) to achieve (leaders)

42
Q

identity-based motivations (Oyserman, 2008)

A

People engage in behaviors based on perceptions of what ‘we’ do

Shifts in understanding of identity-definition can be associated with both ‘good’ & ‘bad’ behaviors

Most groups have exemplars of both good & bad behaviors

43
Q

culture can shape importance of in-group & guide behavior (Iyengar et al., 1999)

A

independent/individualistic cultures
=> More likely to place importance on distinguishing self vs. others (compared to in-group vs. out-group) & strive for independence

interdependent/collectivist cultures
=> More likely to place importance on distinguishing in-group vs. out-group (compared to self vs. others) & strive for interconnectedness to meet needs of the in-group

44
Q

in-group favoritism

A

The psychological tendency to have positive predispositions, favor, & preference for one’s in-group over out-groups (people often have a bias in favor of the groups they belong to)

45
Q

common in-group identity model

A

To the extent that members of different groups conceive of themselves as wholly or partially a part of an inclusive group, relations will be improved

Positive attitudes, empathy, cooperation, self-disclosure, helping
=> Common Identity (one group; we) > Dual Identity (two subgroups in one group; us+them=we) > Separate Groups (us vs. them)

46
Q

ideological conflict hypothesis (Brandt et al., 2014)

A

Both liberals & conservatives show an intolerance of those whose values & beliefs are inconsistent with their own

-Ideas, values, & policies that conflict with their worldview are worldview threatening
-Demonstrate explicit prejudice toward the other side
-Findings are more pronounced for those with higher identification

47
Q

social dominance orientation (SDO)

A

An enduring generalized preference for hierarchy & inequality

-High SDO show less empathy than low SDO
-High SDO report more pleasure from the suffering of others than low SDO

48
Q

hierarchy-enhancing (HE) processes

A

Processes, procedures, & values that directly or indirectly serve to maintain group dominance, hierarchy, and/or inequality

49
Q

hierarchy-attenuating (HA) processes

A

Processes, procedures, & values that directly or indirectly serve to attenuate (reduce) group dominance, hierarchy, and/or inequality

50
Q

hierarchy-enhancing legitimizing myths

A

Factors that provide moral or intellectual justification for group-based inequality

51
Q

societal inequality via powerful groups as the norm

A

Beyond material outcomes, people often use those in power to implicitly or explicitly provide the framework for understanding behavior (what is ‘normal’ or ‘acceptable’?)

Powerful/Advantaged groups are often viewed as the standard for what is ‘appropriate’ behavior (occurs as a mental schema for members of BOTH advantaged & disadvantaged groups)

52
Q

decision-making under socio-economic threat (Sheehy-Skeffington, 2019)

A

Relative to those with more wealth, those with less wealth exhibit:
-Less control over life outcomes
-A psychological shift to short-term goals
-Cognitive resources become focused on tasks that address immediate needs

53
Q

stereotype threat

A

For members of a stereotyped group highly invested in the domain, the threat of being judged & treated stereotypically or possibly fulfilling the stereotype leads them to perform worse in the domain (only applies to those highly motivated to do well in the domain)

54
Q

psychology of bias: factors (Roberts & Rizzo, 2021)

A

-Social categorization
—Automatic
—Associated w/essentialism
-People are embedded within these categories
—Group competition & conflict emerges in everyday life
-Segregation
—Lack of contact narrows experiences & reinforces stereotypes
-Hierarchy (bias favors groups as a function of race/ethnicity, gender, & class)
-Power (bias is enacted in policies to favor those already in power)
-Media (narrow representation of minority groups)

55
Q

factors that explain bias

A

-Identity consolidation
—Defining “us” by not being “them”
-Dealing with personal grievance(s)
-Provides existential certainty
—Ex) Worldview threat
-Enhances personal or group self-image

56
Q

aversive racism (definition)

A

Aversive racists have a conflict between:
1. Feelings & beliefs associated with egalitarian values
2. Negative feelings about Black people, which is often not acknowledged

=> Theory about White, well-intentioned people’s behavior toward Black targets

57
Q

aversive racism (theory explained)

A

When norms for appropriate behavior are CLEAR, aversive racists act on their egalitarian beliefs to behave in a non-prejudiced manner

When norms for appropriate behavior are UNCLEAR, the uncomfortable feeling/anxiety leads aversive racists to behave in a prejudiced manner

58
Q

self-objectification

A

Objectification of women’s bodies causes women to adopt an outsider’s view of themselves, as objects or sights to be appreciated by others

59
Q

consequences of self-objectification:

A

-Increased anxiety (especially abt appearance)
-Increased body shame
-Disrupted cognitive functioning due to diminished mental resources
-Restrained eating

60
Q

subordinate male target hypothesis

A

Discrimination experienced by men of subordinate groups–especially from men of the dominant group–is greater than that experienced by women of the same subordinate groups in certain contexts

61
Q

subordinate male target hypothesis

A

Discrimination experienced by men of subordinate groups–especially from men of the dominant group–is greater than that experienced by women of the same subordinate groups in certain contexts

=> Why men of color are especially likely to be targets of discrimination in certain domains (Housing, genocide, CJS)

62
Q

shifting standards model (Biernat et al., 1991)

A

-Stereotypes implicitly or explicitly operate as standards by which people are judged
-Standards are subjective & rooted in expectations
-The meaning of attributes differ as a function of membership in stereotyped vs. non-stereotyped groups
—Ex) What is means to be “warm” is different for men & women

63
Q

self-fulfilling prophecy

A

An originally false social belief of another person that leads the other person to fulfill the originally false belief

64
Q

three steps of the self-fulfilling prophecy

A
  1. Perceiver has expectation (ex: stereotype, schema)
  2. Perceiver behaves towards target in a way that is consistent with expectation
  3. Target behaves towards perceiver in a way that is consistent with perceiver’s behavior (expectation confirmed)
65
Q

affordance-management model (Neuberg et al., 2020)

A

Perceivers characterize people/groups in terms of the threats or opportunities they pose for desired outcomes

Expression of bias is rooted in what bias can do for you vis-a-vie opportunity & threat

66
Q

three types of false confessions:

A

Voluntary => Involving no external pressure

Coerced-Compliant => Person knows they’re not guilty, but confesses to receive a promised reward (or avoid an adverse penalty)

Coerced-Internalized => Innocent suspect induced to believe (sometimes temporarily) they are guilty

67
Q

looking deathworthy (Eberhardt et al., 2006)

A

-Examined a database of death eligible cases in Philadelphia
-Looked for cases with Black perpetrators
-Then independent raters rated the “stereotypicality” of Black faces (skin tone, hair, lips, etc.)

IV => Divided cases up based on stereotypicality of Black defendant (less vs. more)
DV => Percentage of time person received death penalty (actual cases)
Controls => Aggravating circumstances, severity of murder, defendant’s SES, victim’s SES, defendant attractiveness

Study 1 => White victims
-Stereotypically Black defendants received the death penalty much more than less stereotypically Black defendants

Study 2 => Black victims
-No significant differences in likelihood of getting the death penalty

68
Q

fair process effect

A

Receiving information that suggests fair process/procedures first, biases people in favor of unequal outcomes

=> Given the same outcome/result, but presented first (before procedure info), people rated the outcome as unfair & illegitimate

69
Q

a contingency theory of justice (Skitka et al., 2011)

A

Individual justice reasoning within situations is contingent on 3 factors:

  1. Economics: Material & economic goals & concerns of person (Justice perceptions change as a function of economic threat)
  2. Social: Need to belong, social status, & inclusion goals & concerns of person (Change as a function of perceived loss of inclusion or gain in social status)
  3. Morality: Individual moral convictions about basic right & wrong (Most likely to drive judgments when material & social needs are satisfied)
70
Q

socio-ecological framework of criminal justice judgments (Spruill & Lewis Jr., 2022)

A

Social stratification shapes prior beliefs & justice concerns (stratification of mind)
=>Race, class, political orientation, media consumption, distinct neighborhood-based experiences, & negative/positive contact with the CJS inform beliefs & justice concerns

Prior beliefs & justice concerns (in turn) shape criminal justice decisions in a subjective way
=> Distinct prior beliefs & justice concerns are associated w/systemic patterns of difference in decisions

71
Q

procedural justice

A

Perceived fairness of procedures, processes, or methods for determining allocation of resources

Fair procedures:
-Opportunity for participation (voice)
-Neutrality of authority (lack of bias or agenda)
-Trustworthiness
-Respect for all parties

72
Q

distributive justice

A

Perceived fairness of outcomes or resources received

73
Q

recursive change in persons & situations framework (Walton & Wilson, 2018)

A
  1. Initial self-defeating cycle
  2. Altered meanings (change in the situation that inspired new meanings and/or change in the lens through which people make sense of themselves/situations)
  3. Altered behavior
  4. Self-enhancing cycle
74
Q

elaboration likelihood model

A

central route (controlled)
=> Person carefully thinks about the arguments in the persuasive message

peripheral route (automatic)
=> Person does not actively or deliberately think about the arguments in the persuasive message

75
Q

framing effects

A

People respond very differently to the exact same problem when framed in different ways

76
Q

loss aversion

A

People’s tendency to strongly prefer avoiding losses

77
Q

self-congruity theory of marketing

A

The extent to which an individual perceives a product or brand as consistent w/how they perceive their actual or idealized self shapes purchasing behavior

Consumers are more likely to pay attention to & purchase products from brands that reflect their actual or idealized self-concept

78
Q

six factors that influence persuasion (Cialdini)

A
  1. Reciprocity (People feel obliged to give back to others who have given to them)
  2. Consistency (Once we make a choice/take a stand, we feel pressure to behave consistently with the commitment)
  3. Social validation (People decide what’s appropriate for them to do in a situation by examining what others are doing there)
  4. Liking (We prefer to say “yes” to those we know & like (or who like us))
  5. Authority (People rely on those with superior knowledge or perspective for guidance on how to respond)
  6. Scarcity (Items & opportunities become more desirable when they become less available)
79
Q

intergroup contact

A

If one is motivated to have intergroup contact, bias can be reduced under the right conditions

80
Q

Positive intergroup contact (Allport, 1954)

A

Theory => Positive contact between members of different groups can effectively reduce intergroup prejudice

Takes one or two forms:
1. Interpersonal (day-to-day; quality vs. quantity)
2. Interventions (within a structured environment; equal status, common goals, no intergroup comp, respected authority)

81
Q

impacts of positive intergroup contact:

A

-Reducing anxiety
-Reducing stereotypic views of the out-group
-Increasing empathy

82
Q

Intergroup contact discussion preferences of minority & majority groups (Dovidio et al., 2012)

A

Majority group members => Desire contact discussion to be focused on commonality/harmony

Minority group members => Desire contact discussion to be focused on both commonality & discussion of inequality

83
Q

Implications of different ‘content’ discussions

A

Majority/Powerful groups
Strict focus on commonality & colorblind frameworks => decreases in perceived group inequality & support for policies that promote positive social change

Minority/Less powerful groups
Strict focus on commonality with majority/powerful group => less focus on inequality, decreased estimates of personal discrimination, & increased expectations of benevolent treatment from majority/powerful groups

84
Q

collective action

A

Large numbers of people with a shared identification acting together for the best

85
Q

three predictors of collective action (Van Zomeren et al., 2008)

A
  1. Shared Social Identity (A shared meaningful identity with a common goal)
  2. Anger (Greater anger leads to greater likelihood of collective action)
  3. Efficacy (Perception that action has the ability to change social inequalities) => Greater = greater participation likelihood
86
Q

spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974)

A

People’s perception of public opinion influences their willingness to express their own opinions, which affects others willingness to express opinion

87
Q

elaborated social identity model: Four steps (Drury & Reicher, 2000)

A
  1. Protest starts with ideologically heterogeneous crowd (mostly moderates)
  2. Crowd members perceived & treated as homogeneously dangerous by authorities & police (Ex: One violent group)
  3. Moderate crowd members become more radicalized
  4. Protesters unite around a shared oppositional identity to authorities & police
88
Q

Media framing & response to protests (Brown & Mourao, 2021)

A

Result 1 => Framing minority protests as a ‘riot’ or ‘confrontation w/police’ associated with decreased identification with protestors, lower support for protestors, & decreased acceptance of any criticism of law enforcement–among majority group members

Result 2 => Framing minority protest in a framework of legitimate debates associated with increases in identification with protestors, higher support for protestors, & increased criticism of law enforcement–among majority group members

89
Q

attachment anxiety

A

Reflects fear of abandonment coupled with the absence of emotional support from attachment figures

Practical implication => The extent to which a person worries & ruminates about being abandoned

90
Q

attachment avoidance

A

The tendency to feel discomfort in an intimate relationship with attachment figures

Practical implication => The extent to which a person has an excessive need for self-reliance

91
Q

adult attachment orientations (4)

A
  1. Secure (Believe they are worthy of love & that other people are trustworthy & responsive; Comfortable with intimacy, but also secure enough to be on their own)
  2. Preoccupied/Anxious (Believe they aren’t worthy of love, but generally feel others are supportive & accepting; Seek validation & self-acceptance through their relationships w/others; Can include narcissistic tendencies)
  3. Dismissive-Avoidant (Have a sense of their own self-worth, but don’t trust other people; Avoid intimacy & relying on others; Often don’t have many close relationships)
  4. Fearful-Avoidant (Believe they are unlovable, but also don’t trust other people; Expect rejection & withdraw from others)
92
Q

attachment styles & behavioral patterns (Shaver & Mikulncer, 2002)

A

Preoccupied/Attachment anxiety is associated with hyper-activating strategies

Dismissive or avoidant/attachment avoidance is associated with deactivating strategies

93
Q

hyperactivation strategies

A

Intense efforts to attain proximity & insistent attempts to induce others to provide more satisfying & re-assuring care/support (Clinging, coercive behaviors, need to establish physical contact, many texts, need to establish a sense of “oneness” with other)

94
Q

deactivation strategies

A

Inhibition of proximity-seeking actions & preference to handle stressors alone (Actively seek to distance themselves from partners, prefer control in relationships & of partners)

95
Q

four ‘horseman of the apocalypse’ in conflict/disagreement

A
  1. Criticism (Attacking your partner’s personality or character)
  2. Contempt (Attaching your partner’s sense of self with the intention to insult or abuse them)
  3. Defensiveness (Seeing self as the victim, warding off a perceived attack)
  4. Stonewalling (Withdrawing from the relationship to avoid conflict)
96
Q

conflict de-escalation techniques:

A

-Listen–rather than react (emotionally)
-Take a time-out (interrupt the escalation)
-Acknowledge your part in the conflict
-Be respectful
-Decide on a common goal

97
Q

cognitive distortions (examples)

A

All-or-nothing thinking (Viewing situations on one extreme or another (instead of a continuum))

Catastrophizing (Predicting only negative outcomes for the future)

Disqualifying the positive (Good things that happen don’t count)

Mind-reading (Believing you know what others are thinking)

Personalization (Thinking the negative behavior of others has something to do with you)

98
Q

core tenets of CBT (4):

A

-Emotions are difficult to change
-Shift the thoughts that produce emotions
-Identify how situations, thoughts, & behaviors influence emotions
-Improve feelings by changing counterproductive thoughts & behaviors

99
Q

self-determination theory

A

Humans have three core psychological needs:

  1. Autonomy (The need to see oneself & one’s actions as self-determined)
  2. Competence (Need to see oneself as capable)
  3. Relatedness (Need to feel close/connected to others)

psych 456: social psychology (3 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions