Psychology 2024 Paper I 50 marks 150 words Compulsory Explain

Q5

Answer the following questions in about 150 words each: (a) Citing research evidence, explain the components of working memory. (10 marks) (b) What are the main differences between James-Lange and Cannon-Bard theories of emotion? Explain. (10 marks) (c) Differentiate between intelligence and aptitude. Also, discuss the main features of a good intelligence test. (10 marks) (d) Describe the biological and socio-cultural determinants of personality. Illustrate your answer with the help of Indian studies. (10 marks) (e) Is cognitive dissonance effective in changing attitude? Discuss in the light of research evidence. (10 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

निम्नलिखित प्रत्येक प्रश्न का उत्तर लगभग 150 शब्दों में दीजिए : (a) शोध साक्ष्य के संदर्भ में क्रियाशील स्मृति (वर्किंग मेमोरी) के घटकों की व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (b) जेम्स-लैंग और कैनन-बार्ड के संवेग सिद्धांतों के बीच मुख्य अंतर क्या हैं? व्याख्या कीजिए। (10 अंक) (c) बुद्धि और अभिक्षमता के बीच अंतर कीजिए। साथ ही, एक अच्छे बुद्धि परीक्षण की मुख्य विशेषताओं की विवेचना भी कीजिए। (10 अंक) (d) व्यक्तित्व के जैविक और सामाजिक-सांस्कृतिक निर्धारकों का वर्णन कीजिए। अपने उत्तर को भारतीय अध्ययनों की सहायता से स्पष्ट कीजिए। (10 अंक) (e) क्या संज्ञानात्मक विसंगति, अभिवृत्ति बदलने में प्रभावी है? शोध साक्ष्यों के आलोक में विवेचना कीजिए। (10 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 Psychology questions

Directive word: Explain

This question asks you to explain. 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

This multi-part question requires explaining five distinct psychological concepts in approximately 150 words each. Allocate roughly equal time and words (~30 words per mark) across all sub-parts since each carries 10 marks. For (a), explain with Baddeley's model and research evidence; for (b), compare-contrast the two emotion theories; for (c), differentiate then enumerate test features; for (d), cover both determinants with Indian illustrations; for (e), discuss with supporting and limiting evidence. No introduction or conclusion is needed—begin directly with each sub-part answer.

Key points expected

(a) Working memory: Phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, episodic buffer, central executive; cite Baddeley & Hitch (1974), Baddeley (2000), or neuroimaging studies
(b) Emotion theories: James-Lange (peripheral feedback precedes emotion) vs. Cannon-Bard (thalamic relay, simultaneous experience); cite Cannon's critique of James-Lange
(c) Intelligence vs. aptitude: former is general cognitive ability, latter is specific potential; good test features—standardization, reliability, validity, norms, objectivity
(d) Personality determinants: Biological (genetics, temperament, Eysenck's PEN, neurotransmitters); Socio-cultural (family, religion, caste, urbanization); Indian studies—Kuppuswamy, Rao & Reddy, or SCERT studies on tribal/urban comparisons
(e) Cognitive dissonance: Festinger's theory, induced compliance, post-decision dissonance; effectiveness—cite Festinger & Carlsmith (1959), Aronson & Mills, or Indian studies on attitude change; limitations—self-affirmation theory, individual differences

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Concept correctness	20%	10	All five sub-parts demonstrate precise, accurate definitions: correctly identifies all four working memory components; accurately distinguishes James-Lange (visceral feedback first) from Cannon-Bard (thalamus, simultaneous); clearly differentiates intelligence (general) from aptitude (specific); correctly identifies both biological and socio-cultural factors; accurately explains cognitive dissonance mechanism	Most concepts are correctly identified but with minor errors—e.g., confuses central executive with short-term memory, or conflates Cannon-Bard with Schachter-Singer; some determinants missing or intelligence/aptitude distinction blurred	Major conceptual errors across multiple sub-parts—e.g., reverses James-Lange sequence, omits key components of working memory, fails to distinguish intelligence from aptitude, or fundamentally misunderstands cognitive dissonance
Theory & studies cited	20%	10	Rich citation of foundational research: for (a) Baddeley & Hitch (1974), Baddeley (2000), or neuroimaging evidence; for (b) Cannon's (1927) critique and experimental evidence; for (c) Binet, Wechsler, or APA standards; for (d) Eysenck's biological theory with Indian studies (Kuppuswamy, SCERT); for (e) Festinger & Carlsmith (1959), Aronson & Mills, or Indian attitude-change research	Some theories named but without specific studies or years; generic references like 'research shows' without attribution; Indian studies mentioned vaguely or incorrectly	Minimal or no research citation; theories mentioned without originators; no Indian studies for part (d); relies entirely on textbook generalizations without evidence
Application examples	20%	10	Concrete, relevant illustrations: for (a) real-world applications like mental arithmetic or navigation; for (b) applied scenarios showing different predictions; for (c) examples of aptitude tests (DAT, SAT) vs. intelligence tests; for (d) specific Indian contexts—tribal vs. urban personality patterns, joint family influence; for (e) applied examples of dissonance reduction in consumer behavior or social issues	Some examples given but generic or not well-integrated; Indian examples for (d) are stereotypical or not research-based; examples for other parts are textbook-standard without originality	Few or no concrete examples; examples are irrelevant or factually wrong; completely omits Indian illustrations where explicitly required in (d)
Multi-perspective analysis	20%	10	Demonstrates analytical depth across parts: for (a) integrates cognitive and neuropsychological perspectives; for (b) evaluates strengths and limitations of both theories; for (c) acknowledges debates (single vs. multiple intelligences); for (d) balances biological and cultural determinism, avoiding reductionism; for (e) presents both supporting evidence and critical limitations (self-affirmation, cultural variations)	Some analytical elements but uneven—strong on comparison in (b) and (c) but descriptive elsewhere; limited critical evaluation in (e); one-sided presentation in (d)	Purely descriptive with no analysis; no comparison in (b) or (c); no evaluation of evidence in (e); completely unbalanced treatment of determinants in (d)
Conclusion & evaluation	20%	10	Each sub-part concludes with appropriate synthesis: for (a) notes contemporary relevance of working memory in education/AI; for (b) acknowledges integration in modern theories (Schachter-Singer, Damasio); for (c) emphasizes comprehensive assessment; for (d) concludes with interactionist perspective supported by Indian evidence; for (e) balanced judgment on effectiveness with conditions for success	Some sub-parts have weak or missing conclusions; conclusions are generic restatements rather than evaluative synthesis; no forward-looking or integrative closing	No conclusions in most sub-parts; or conclusions are irrelevant; abrupt endings that leave arguments unresolved; completely misses evaluative dimension where required (especially in e)

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 →