Psychology 2021 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Discuss

Q1

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) What are the limits of intuition and common sense? Why do psychologists emphasize on scientific methods? Discuss. (10 marks) (b) State the role of psychologist in resolving interpersonal conflicts and social unrest. (10 marks) (c) Discuss the challenges during group brainstorming process. (10 marks) (d) Describe the role of mass media in shaping the behaviour of adolescents. Support it with appropriate examples. (10 marks) (e) With reference to the concept of memory construction evaluate the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in judicial trial. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) सहजबोध और सामान्य समझ की क्या सीमाएं हैं ? मनोवैज्ञानिक वैज्ञानिक विधियों पर क्यों जोर देते हैं ? चर्चा करें । (10 अंक) (b) पारस्परिक संघर्षों और सामाजिक अशांति के समाधान में मनोवैज्ञानिक की भूमिका का वर्णन कीजिए । (10 अंक) (c) समूह विचार-मंथन प्रक्रिया के दौरान आने वाली चुनौतियों पर चर्चा करें । (10 अंक) (d) किशोरों के व्यवहार को आकार देने में जनसंचार माध्यमों की भूमिका का वर्णन करें । उपयुक्त उदाहरण देकर इसका समर्थन करें । (10 अंक) (e) स्मृति निर्माण की अवधारणा के संदर्भ में न्यायिक परीक्षण में प्रत्यक्षदर्शी गवाही की सटीकता का मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 Psychology questions

Directive word: Discuss

This question asks you to discuss. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

The directive 'discuss' demands a balanced examination with critical analysis across all five parts. Allocate approximately 30 words per sub-part (150 words each), spending roughly 3 minutes per part. Structure each sub-part with: brief conceptual definition, 2-3 analytical points with evidence, and a concise evaluative closing. For (a) emphasize hindisght bias and confirmation bias; for (b) focus on mediation and community interventions; for (c) address production blocking and evaluation apprehension; for (d) use Indian media examples like TV serials or social media trends; for (e) apply Loftus's misinformation effect and Indian judicial contexts.

Key points expected

  • (a) Limits of intuition: hindisght bias, overconfidence phenomenon, confirmation bias; scientific methods provide empirical validation, replicability, falsifiability, and control for subjective errors
  • (b) Psychologist's role: conflict mediation through active listening, negotiation training, community psychology interventions, trauma counseling during social unrest, and policy advocacy
  • (c) Brainstorming challenges: production blocking, evaluation apprehension, social loafing, conformity pressure, and illusion of group productivity (Nijstad's research)
  • (d) Mass media influence: social learning of aggression, body image concerns, identity formation, with Indian examples like TikTok trends, TV serials, or Bollywood influence on adolescent consumerism
  • (e) Memory construction: Loftus's misinformation effect, source monitoring errors, schema-driven reconstruction, leading to wrongful convictions in Indian cases like the Aarushi Talwar investigation
  • (e continued) Evaluation: suggestive questioning, lineup procedures, and need for cognitive interview techniques in Indian judicial system

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines all five concepts: for (a) distinguishes hindisght bias from confirmation bias; for (c) differentiates production blocking from evaluation apprehension; for (e) accurately explains reconstructive memory versus reproductive memory; no conceptual conflation across sub-partsBasic definitions present but some imprecision—e.g., conflates intuition limits with general cognitive biases, or describes brainstorming challenges vaguely without specific mechanismsMajor conceptual errors: confuses scientific method with common sense, misidentifies brainstorming as always productive, or treats eyewitness memory as photographic rather than constructed
Theory & studies cited20%10Cites specific researchers: Loftus for memory construction (e), Nijstad/Diehl for brainstorming (c), Bandura for media effects (d), and mentions cognitive interview protocol; references Indian psychological research where relevantMentions general theoretical frameworks (social learning theory, reconstructive memory) without naming specific researchers or studies; or cites only Western sources without Indian relevanceNo theoretical backing; relies on commonsense assertions like 'media affects youth' without Bandura or cultivation theory; describes memory errors without referencing Loftus or schema theory
Application examples20%10Provides contextualized Indian examples: for (d) cites specific media (e.g., Mirzapur's influence, Instagram Reels trends, or Fair & Lovely advertising); for (e) references actual Indian cases or police procedures; for (b) mentions community-level interventions in Indian contextsGeneric examples without Indian specificity—e.g., 'TV violence affects children' without naming Indian programs; or Western examples (Columbine shooting) when Indian contexts are availableNo concrete examples; purely abstract treatment of all five parts; or factually incorrect examples that misrepresent the phenomenon being illustrated
Multi-perspective analysis20%10Demonstrates critical balance: for (a) acknowledges when intuition works (expertise-based intuition) versus fails; for (c) notes conditions when brainstorming succeeds (electronic brainstorming, nominal group technique); for (e) weighs probative value versus limitations of eyewitness testimonyOne-sided treatment—e.g., only criticizes intuition without noting adaptive value, or only lists brainstorming problems without mentioning solutions; limited critical engagementPurely descriptive without analysis; accepts premises uncritically; no recognition of counter-arguments or boundary conditions for any of the five sub-parts
Conclusion & evaluation20%10Each sub-part closes with evaluative synthesis: for (a) emphasizes scientific humility; for (b) stresses preventive versus curative roles; for (e) recommends specific reforms (cognitive interview, expert testimony) for Indian criminal justice; maintains proportionality across all five conclusionsSummaries present but lack evaluative depth—mere restatements of points; or strong conclusion for one sub-part with weak/absent conclusions for others; no forward-looking recommendationsAbrupt endings without synthesis; or single generic conclusion attempting to cover all five disparate topics; no evidence of prioritization or judgment formation in any sub-part

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →

More from Psychology 2021 Paper I