Psychology 2025 Paper I 50 marks Describe

Q4

(a) Describe social cognitive theory and its applications to solve large scale societal problems. (20 marks) (b) 'Meditation alters consciousness.' Discuss this by explaining meditation and consciousness along with relevant research examples. (15 marks) (c) What is the Whorfian hypothesis of linguistic relativity ? Evaluate with empirical evidences. (15 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) बड़े पैमाने की सामाजिक समस्याओं को हल करने के लिए सामाजिक संज्ञानात्मक सिद्धांत तथा इसके अनुप्रयोगों का वर्णन कीजिए। (20 अंक) (b) 'ध्यान चेतना को परिवर्तित करता है।' प्रासांगिक अनुसंधान उदाहरणों के साथ ध्यान और चेतना को समझाते हुए इस पर चर्चा कीजिए। (15 अंक) (c) भाषिक सापेक्षता की व्होर्फियन परिकल्पना क्या है ? प्रयोगसिद्ध साक्ष्यों से मूल्यांकन कीजिए। (15 अंक)

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

Directive word: Describe

This question asks you to describe. 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 'describe' for part (a) demands comprehensive coverage with elaboration, while parts (b) and (c) require 'discuss' and 'evaluate' respectively—meaning balanced argumentation with evidence. Allocate approximately 40% of time/words to part (a) given its 20 marks, and roughly 30% each to parts (b) and (c). Structure as: brief integrative introduction → detailed treatment of each sub-part with clear demarcations → synthesizing conclusion that connects social cognitive change, altered consciousness, and linguistic frameworks as complementary pathways for societal transformation.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): Bandura's SCT core constructs—reciprocal determinism, observational learning, self-efficacy, outcome expectations; applications to public health (India's polio eradication via media campaigns), environmental conservation (Chipko movement's modeling), and education (Diksha platform's vicarious learning)
  • Part (a): Distinction between SCT and behaviorism; agentic perspective; collective efficacy for large-scale problems like climate change or communal harmony
  • Part (b): Definitions of consciousness (wakefulness + awareness) and meditation (focused attention/open monitoring); neuroplasticity research—Davidson's EEG studies on Tibetan monks, Lazar's fMRI showing increased cortical thickness
  • Part (b): Altered states through meditation—transcendental consciousness, de-automatization; Indian research—NIMHANS studies on Vipassana, Sudarshan Kriya effects on brain wave patterns
  • Part (c): Strong vs. weak Whorfian hypothesis; linguistic determinism vs. linguistic relativity; color term research—Berlin & Kay's basic color terms (universalist critique), Boroditsky's spatial cognition studies (Maya vs. Dutch speakers)
  • Part (c): Indian linguistic evidence—Gumperz on Hindi-English code-switching, Danziger on Malayalam temporal orientation; evaluation showing partial support for weak version, rejection of strong determinism

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precisely defines SCT's triadic reciprocality without conflating with pure behaviorism; accurately distinguishes focused attention vs. open awareness meditation; correctly identifies strong vs. weak Whorfian positions with no category errorsBasic definitions present but conflates SCT with social learning theory broadly; describes meditation techniques without clear consciousness mechanisms; states Whorfian hypothesis without version distinctionMisidentifies core concepts—e.g., treats SCT as stimulus-response theory, confuses meditation with relaxation, or presents Whorfian hypothesis as universally accepted linguistic determinism
Theory & studies cited20%10Cites Bandura (1986, 2001) for agency and collective efficacy; Davidson, Lazar, and Kasamatsu for meditation neuroscience; Berlin-Kay, Boroditsky, Levinson, and Gumperz for linguistic relativity—demonstrating chronological and methodological awarenessMentions Bandura and basic meditation studies; references Whorf and Sapir with limited empirical follow-through; missing contemporary research or Indian studiesNo theorist names or incorrect attributions; generic references like 'studies show' without specificity; confuses researchers with their findings
Application examples20%10For (a): India's polio eradication (Pulse Polio modeling), Swachh Bharat's behavioral change; for (b): prison rehabilitation programs (Tihar), corporate stress management; for (c): bilingual education policy implications, judicial language accessibilityWestern examples dominant or generic applications; mentions Indian contexts superficially without program specifics; examples relevant but not tightly linked to theory mechanismsNo concrete examples or irrelevant illustrations; confuses applications across sub-parts; purely hypothetical scenarios without empirical grounding
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): critiques SCT's cognitive emphasis vs. structural constraints; for (b): balances neuroscientific with phenomenological accounts; for (c): weighs universalist (Pinker) against relativist positions with synthesis toward weak relativityAcknowledges one alternative perspective per sub-part without deep engagement; mentions critiques in passing; limited integration across the three domainsSingle perspective dominance; no acknowledgment of theoretical controversies; treats all three domains as settled science without scholarly debate
Conclusion & evaluation20%10Synthesizes how SCT's modeling, meditation's consciousness alteration, and linguistic framing together enable societal transformation—evaluates each approach's scope and limitations; ends with policy-relevant insight for IndiaSummarizes three parts separately without integration; restates main points without evaluative judgment; generic conclusion applicable to any psychology questionMissing conclusion or abrupt ending; introduces new information in conclusion; purely descriptive closure without evaluative stance on the three approaches' comparative efficacy

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