Q6
(a) Explain the nature of human attitudes. How is the knowledge of attitude change process helpful in bringing religious harmony in the Indian context? Discuss. (20 marks) (b) Nurturing social intelligence at early developmental stages can play a critical role in conflict resolution at later stages. Explain with the help of examples. (15 marks) (c) Is there perception without sensation? Evaluate critically in the light of empirical evidences. (15 marks)
हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें
(a) मानव अभिवृत्तियों की प्रकृति की व्याख्या कीजिए। भारतीय संदर्भ में अभिवृत्ति परिवर्तन प्रक्रिया का ज्ञान धार्मिक सद्भावना लाने में किस प्रकार सहायक है? चर्चा कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) प्रारंभिक विकासात्मक अवस्थाओं में सामाजिक बुद्धिमत्ता का पोषण बाद की अवस्थाओं में मतभेद समाधान में महत्वपूर्ण भूमिका निभा सकता है। उदाहरणों की सहायता से स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) क्या संवेदना के बिना प्रत्यक्षण हो सकता है? अनुभविक साक्ष्यों के आलोक में समालोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 अंक)
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' requires a balanced examination of all three parts with critical engagement. Structure with a brief integrated introduction, then address each sub-question sequentially: (a) define attitudes and their components, then apply attitude change theories to religious harmony in India; (b) explain social intelligence development and link early nurturing to adult conflict resolution with concrete examples; (c) present both sides of the perception-sensation debate with empirical evidence. Conclude with synthesis across all three parts.
Key points expected
- Attitude structure (ABC components: affective, behavioral, cognitive) and functions (ego-defensive, value-expressive, knowledge, utilitarian)
- Attitude change theories applied: cognitive dissonance (Festinger), elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo), contact hypothesis (Allport) for religious harmony in India
- Social intelligence components (social awareness, social facility) and developmental windows; link to emotional intelligence and theory of mind
- Early intervention programs (Anganwadi SEL, Indian school-based life skills) and longitudinal outcomes in community conflict resolution
- Perception-sensation debate: Gibson's direct perception vs. constructivist view; blindsight, phantom limb, synesthesia as empirical evidence
- Critical evaluation of whether perception requires sensation: neurological evidence (prosopagnosia, visual agnosia) and philosophical positions
Evaluation rubric
| Dimension | Weight | Max marks | Excellent | Average | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Concept correctness | 20% | 10 | Precise definitions of attitude components, social intelligence constructs, and perception-sensation distinction; accurate distinction between sensation (proximal stimulus, receptor activation) and perception (interpretation, organization); correct application of developmental concepts | Basic definitions present but conflates related terms (e.g., attitude with belief, social intelligence with emotional intelligence); oversimplified perception-sensation distinction without nuance | Fundamental conceptual errors: treats attitude as purely emotional, confuses social intelligence with IQ, or claims perception always requires sensation without qualification |
| Theory & studies cited | 20% | 10 | Cites specific theories: Festinger's cognitive dissonance, Petty-Cacioppo ELM, Allport's contact hypothesis, Thorndike's social intelligence, Gibson's ecological perception; includes Indian studies (e.g., Singh on religious attitudes, Kaur on SEL programs) and empirical evidence (Weiskrantz's blindsight, Ramachandran's phantom limb) | Mentions major theorists without specific study details; generic reference to 'research shows' without naming studies; limited Indian context | No theoretical grounding or cites incorrect theories; confuses theorists (e.g., attributes cognitive dissonance to Festinger correctly but misapplies it); no empirical evidence for perception debate |
| Application examples | 20% | 10 | Rich Indian examples: attitude change through interfaith dialogue (Sulh-i-Kul, Kabir Panth), social intelligence programs (NCERT's life skills curriculum, Kerala's 'Sampoorna' early education), conflict resolution (Naga peace process, community mediation); perception examples from Indian context (cross-cultural perceptual set studies) | Generic examples without Indian specificity; mentions religious harmony or early education without concrete programs; Western examples only for perception debate | No applied examples or irrelevant ones; hypothetical scenarios without grounding; examples contradict the theoretical framework presented |
| Multi-perspective analysis | 20% | 10 | Presents multiple theoretical positions: functional vs. structural attitude theories; nativist vs. empiricist views on social intelligence; direct vs. constructivist perception; evaluates limitations of each; addresses counterarguments (e.g., why contact hypothesis may fail in Indian communal contexts) | Acknowledges alternative views superficially; one-sided presentation dominant; limited critical engagement with own position | Single perspective throughout; no recognition of theoretical debates; dogmatic assertions without qualification; ignores part (c)'s critical evaluation demand |
| Conclusion & evaluation | 20% | 10 | Synthesizes across all three parts showing interconnection (attitudes, social intelligence, perception as interconnected social cognition); balanced judgment on perception-sensation with qualified conclusion; forward-looking recommendations for India (policy suggestions for religious harmony through education); acknowledges scope limitations | Summarizes main points without synthesis; generic conclusion; no policy recommendations or future directions | No conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces new arguments in conclusion; contradictory to body; purely descriptive summary without evaluation |
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 2022 Paper I
- Q1 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Describe the applications of psychological principles in managing drug abuse in…
- Q2 (a) State the assumptions and merits of two-way ANOVA. Explain the applications of the same in psychological research with an appropriate e…
- Q3 (a) Is problem solving a psychological process? Illustrate your answer with the steps and methods involved in problem solving. Differentiat…
- Q4 (a) Can human beings be fully functioning and self-actualized? Evaluate it from humanistic and psychoanalytic perspectives of personality.…
- Q5 Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Discuss the significance of single blind-double blind procedures for establishi…
- Q6 (a) Explain the nature of human attitudes. How is the knowledge of attitude change process helpful in bringing religious harmony in the Ind…
- Q7 (a) Is intelligence a univariate or multivariate concept? Discuss in the light of Spearman's and J. P. Das's theories of intelligence. (20…
- Q8 (a) "Learning occurs not only through conditioning but also from our observations of others." Discuss this statement from children's point…