Psychology 2025 Paper I 50 marks Evaluate

Q2

(a) 'Personality is all in our genes.' Evaluate the statement in the context of different personality theories. (20 marks) (b) When psychologists label their perspective 'humanistic', what does this term mean to you ? What is its relevance in the modern era ? (15 marks) (c) In what ways is probability sampling appropriate in the conduct of psychological research ? Illustrate your answer with different techniques of probability sampling. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) 'व्यक्तित्व पूरी तरह से हमारे जीनों में है ।' विभिन्न व्यक्तित्व सिद्धांतों के संदर्भ में इस कथन का मूल्यांकन कीजिए । (20 अंक) (b) जब मनोवैज्ञानिक अपने दृष्टिकोण को 'मानवतावादी' अंकित करते हैं, तो इस शब्द का आपके लिए क्या अर्थ है ? आधुनिक युग में इसकी क्या प्रासंगिकता है ? (15 अंक) (c) मनोवैज्ञानिक शोध करने में प्रायिकता प्रतिचयन किन तरहों से उपयुक्त है ? विभिन्न प्रायिकता प्रतिचयन की तकनीकों के साथ अपने उत्तर को स्पष्ट कीजिए। (15 अंक)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2025 Psychology questions

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 'evaluate' in part (a) demands critical judgment with evidence, while parts (b) and (c) require explanation and illustration respectively. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure with a brief integrated introduction, three clearly demarcated sections for each sub-part, and a synthesizing conclusion that connects personality determinism with humanistic freedom and scientific methodology.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Critical evaluation of genetic determinism using twin studies (Bouchard, Minnesota study), adoption studies, and molecular genetics (5-HTT gene), balanced against environmental influences and gene-environment interaction
  • Part (a): Coverage of major personality theories—trait (Eysenck's PEN model with biological basis), psychodynamic (Freud's instinct theory), social-cognitive (Bandura's reciprocal determinism), and humanistic (Rogers' actualizing tendency)—showing how each addresses genetic vs. environmental contributions
  • Part (b): Explanation of 'humanistic' as emphasizing free will, subjective experience, self-actualization, and holistic growth; distinguishing from deterministic perspectives
  • Part (b): Contemporary relevance including positive psychology (Seligman), workplace well-being, mental health de-stigmatization in India, and limitations in cross-cultural applicability
  • Part (c): Appropriateness of probability sampling for generalizability, representativeness, and statistical inference in psychological research
  • Part (c): Illustration of four techniques—simple random sampling (lottery method), stratified random sampling (gender/SES strata in Indian educational research), systematic sampling, and cluster sampling (multistage in rural mental health surveys)
  • Synthesis: Integration showing how methodological rigor (part c) helps test theories about personality determinants (part a), while humanistic values (part b) guide ethical research priorities

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Accurately defines heritability coefficients without misinterpreting them as destiny; correctly distinguishes genotype-environment correlation from interaction; precisely characterizes humanistic principles (phenomenology, holism); accurately describes probability sampling requirements and distinguishes it from non-probability methodsBasic definitions present but conflates heritability with genetic determinism; oversimplifies humanistic approach as merely 'positive thinking'; confuses stratified with cluster sampling or misstates random selection requirementsFundamental errors such as claiming genes code for specific behaviors directly, equating humanistic with humanitarian, or stating probability sampling guarantees representativeness without random selection
Theory & studies cited20%10For (a): cites Eysenck's biological trait theory, Bouchard's Minnesota twin study, Caspi's 5-HTT gene × environment interaction; for (b): references Maslow's hierarchy, Rogers' person-centered therapy, Seligman's positive psychology; for (c): mentions Fisher's randomization principle, Indian examples like ICMR surveys or NIMHANS epidemiological studiesMentions major theorists (Freud, Maslow) without specific studies; generic reference to 'twin studies' without naming Bouchard; cites sampling types without authoritative sources or Indian examplesNo specific studies named; confuses theorists (e.g., attributes humanistic ideas to behaviorists); invents studies or misattributes findings; no awareness of Indian psychological research
Application examples20%10For (a): applies gene-environment interplay to Indian context (caste-socialization interaction with temperament); for (b): concrete applications like workplace wellness programs (TCS, Infosys), school-based life skills education (CBSE's SEL); for (c): detailed illustration of stratified sampling in NIMHANS National Mental Health Survey or cluster sampling in rural Karnataka depression prevalence studyGeneric Western examples only; superficial mention of Indian contexts without specificity; sampling illustrations lack procedural detail or real research namesNo concrete examples; purely theoretical treatment; inappropriate examples (e.g., convenience sampling presented as probability sampling); no Indian relevance demonstrated
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): balances biological (Eysenck, behavioral genetics), psychodynamic (Freud's constitutional types), humanistic (free will critique), and social-cognitive (reciprocal determinism) perspectives; for (b): acknowledges both strengths (holistic, empowering) and limitations (cultural bias, individualism, measurement challenges); for (c): evaluates when probability sampling is essential (large-scale surveys) versus impractical (rare populations, qualitative depth)Presents multiple theories descriptively without critical comparison; acknowledges one limitation of humanistic approach superficially; lists sampling advantages without situational analysisSingle perspective dominance (e.g., only biological for personality); uncritical celebration of humanistic approach; presents probability sampling as universally superior without nuance
Conclusion & evaluation20%10Synthesizes across parts: personality emerges from gene-environment interplay best studied through representative sampling, with humanistic values guiding ethical priorities; offers balanced judgment that genetic influence is substantial but not deterministic; humanistic relevance persists but requires cultural adaptation; probability sampling remains gold standard for generalizable findings despite practical constraintsSeparate conclusions for each part without integration; repetitive summary of points without fresh evaluative insight; generic statement about 'need for more research'No conclusion or abrupt ending; contradictory final stance (e.g., endorsing genetic determinism after presenting interaction evidence); missing evaluation despite 'evaluate' directive; ignores one or more sub-parts in conclusion

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 2025 Paper I