Psychology 2024 Paper I 50 marks Discuss

Q8

(a) How do Skinner and Chomsky differ in their approach to language development? Also, discuss the processes and outcomes of bilingualism and multilingualism in Indian context. (20 marks) (b) Critically evaluate the positive and negative effects of modern computer technology and artificial intelligence on human behaviour. (15 marks) (c) What advice would you give to a civil servant to reduce prejudice and discrimination in Indian society? Discuss. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) भाषा विकास के प्रति स्किनर और चॉम्स्की के दृष्टिकोण किस प्रकार भिन्न हैं? भारतीय संदर्भ में द्विभाषिकता तथा बहुभाषिकता की प्रक्रियाओं और परिणामों की विवेचना भी कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) मानव व्यवहार पर आधुनिक कम्प्यूटर प्रौद्योगिकी और कृत्रिम बुद्धि के सकारात्मक और नकारात्मक प्रभावों का आलोचनात्मक मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) भारतीय समाज में पूर्वाग्रह और भेदभाव को कम करने के लिए आप एक सिविल सेवक को क्या सलाह दीजिएगा? विवेचना कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 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' requires comprehensive treatment with critical examination. Allocate approximately 40% of word budget to part (a) given its 20 marks, covering Skinner-Chomsky contrast first then bilingualism outcomes; 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure: brief introduction framing language-cognition-behavior nexus; body addressing each sub-part sequentially with clear demarcations; conclusion synthesizing insights on human adaptability in technological and pluralistic contexts.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Contrast Skinner's operant conditioning (reinforcement, imitation, environmental control) with Chomsky's nativism (LAD, universal grammar, poverty of stimulus argument); identify their philosophical divergence (empiricism vs. rationalism)
  • Part (a): Discuss bilingualism processes (simultaneous vs. sequential acquisition, code-switching, cognitive advantages like enhanced executive control; reference Indian contexts: three-language formula, tribal multilingualism, cognitive reserve in aging
  • Part (b): Evaluate positive effects (cognitive offloading, extended mind thesis, accessibility, educational technology) and negative effects (attention fragmentation, digital amnesia, social displacement, algorithmic bias, deskilling)
  • Part (b): Critical analysis through specific frameworks: Carr's 'shallows' thesis, Turkle's 'alone together', Indian digital divide implications, AI in governance (e.g., facial recognition concerns)
  • Part (c): Evidence-based advice for civil servants: contact hypothesis implementation (intergroup residential programs), institutional reforms (implicit bias training, blind recruitment), leveraging superordinate goals (disaster response, national integration)
  • Part (c): Indian specificity: addressing caste prejudice (Ambedkar's annihilation of caste), religious discrimination, regionalism; constitutional values (Articles 15, 16, 29); behavioral nudges in policy delivery

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely distinguishes Skinner's reinforcement schedules from Chomsky's transformational grammar; accurately defines bilingualism types (compound/coordinate/subordinate) and LAD; correctly identifies AI behavior modification mechanisms and prejudice reduction theories without conflationBasic definitions present but some conflation (e.g., confusing imitation with modeling); oversimplifies nativism or misses poverty of stimulus; generic treatment of technology effects without specificityFundamental errors: attributes universal grammar to Skinner, confuses bilingualism with diglossia, misrepresents AI as purely behavioral stimulus without cognitive dimensions, conflates prejudice with stereotype
Theory & studies cited20%10Cites Chomsky (1959 review of Verbal Behavior), Lenneberg's critical period, Mehler & Dupoux on neonate speech perception; for bilingualism: Bialystok's executive function research, Indian studies (Mohanty, Annamalai); for technology: Norman's affordances, Kahneman's System 1/2 in digital contexts; for prejudice: Allport's contact hypothesis, Tajfel's minimal group, Indian studies (D'Souza, Sharma on caste)Mentions Chomsky and Skinner by name but lacks specific studies; generic reference to 'research shows' for bilingual advantages; technology discussion lacks theoretical anchoring; prejudice section cites only AllportNo named theorists or studies; relies on commonsense assertions; misattributes theories (e.g., Bandura for Chomsky); entirely absent empirical backing for claims
Application examples20%10For (a): konkani-Portuguese contact in Goa, tribal multilingualism in Northeast, cognitive benefits in Indian judiciary translators; For (b): Aadhaar authentication behavior, UPI adoption patterns, AI in Supreme Court research, social media and mob violence; For (c): police training reforms (BPR&D), inter-caste hostels, Sachar Committee implementation, behavioral insights unit in NITI AayogGeneric Indian references (Hindi-English bilingualism) without specificity; technology examples limited to smartphones/social media without governance context; prejudice examples routine (reservations) without behavioral intervention detailNo Indian examples; entirely Western illustrations; or irrelevant examples (animal studies for language, industrial revolution for AI)
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): integrates interactionist synthesis (Tomasello, usage-based theories); For (b): balances technological determinism vs. social construction of technology, individual vs. societal effects, generational differences; For (c): weighs individual attitude change vs. structural reform, top-down policy vs. bottom-up community engagement, short-term nudges vs. long-term value transformationPresents both sides but as isolated points without synthesis; limited integration across sub-parts; one perspective dominates without acknowledgment of alternativesSingle perspective throughout; no acknowledgment of limitations (e.g., uncritical celebration of technology or purely punitive approach to prejudice); no synthesis or weighing of evidence
Conclusion & evaluation20%10Synthesizes across all three parts: language plasticity, technological adaptation, and social cohesion as interconnected domains of human behavioral flexibility; offers nuanced forward-looking assessment (e.g., AI as augmenting rather than replacing human judgment; constitutional patriotism as prejudice antidote); identifies specific research or policy gapsSummarizes main points without synthesis; generic concluding statement about 'balanced approach'; no explicit connection between sub-partsAbsent or abrupt conclusion; mere restatement of question; new information introduced; contradictory to body of answer

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 2024 Paper I