Psychology 2025 Paper II 50 marks Describe

Q7

(a) Explain the concepts of social facilitation and social inhibition in the context of group processes. (15 marks) (b) Prepare the psychological profile of a terrorist. What are the common characteristics, motivations and beliefs that drive individuals to terrorist activities? (15 marks) (c) Describe the psychological consequences of constructing social realities on the basis of information gained through social media. How can these be checked by psychological interventions? (20 marks)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) समूह प्रक्रियाओं के संदर्भ में सामाजिक सरलीकरण और सामाजिक अवरोध के संप्रत्यों की व्याख्या कीजिए। (15 अंक) (b) एक आतंकवादी की मनोवैज्ञानिक रूपरेखा (प्रोफाइल) तैयार कीजिए। व्यक्तियों को आतंकवादी गतिविधियों की ओर ले जाने वाली सामान्य विशेषताएँ, अभिप्रेरणाएँ तथा विश्वास क्या हैं? (15 अंक) (c) सोशल मीडिया के माध्यम से प्राप्त जानकारी के आधार पर सामाजिक वास्तविकताओं का निर्माण करने के मनोवैज्ञानिक परिणामों का वर्णन कीजिए। मनोवैज्ञानिक हस्तक्षेपों द्वारा इन्हें कैसे रोका जा सकता है? (20 अंक)

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 (c) demands detailed exposition with psychological depth, while parts (a) and (b) require 'explain' and profile preparation respectively. Allocate approximately 30% time/words to part (a) (15 marks), 30% to part (b) (15 marks), and 40% to part (c) (20 marks). Structure with a brief integrative introduction, three distinct sections for each sub-part with clear sub-headings, and a synthesizing conclusion linking group dynamics, extremism, and media influence on collective behavior.

Key points expected

  • For (a): Clear distinction between social facilitation (improved performance on simple/well-learned tasks) and social inhibition (impaired performance on complex/novel tasks) with reference to Zajonc's drive theory, Cottrell's evaluation apprehension model, and distraction-conflict theory; mention of audience effects vs. co-action effects
  • For (b): Comprehensive psychological profile covering demographic patterns (age, education, socioeconomic status), personality traits (authoritarianism, need for closure, identity fusion), push-pull factors (relative deprivation, personal grievances, ideological appeal), and group-level processes (radicalization pathways, role of charismatic leaders); reference to Sageman's work on terrorist networks and Indian context (e.g., LTTE, Kashmir insurgency, Naxalism)
  • For (c): Analysis of social reality construction through social media including filter bubbles, echo chambers, confirmation bias, availability heuristic, and pluralistic ignorance; psychological consequences such as increased polarization, anxiety/FOMO, reduced critical thinking, and reality distortion
  • For (c): Psychological interventions including media literacy education, cognitive debiasing techniques, digital mindfulness, platform-level algorithmic transparency, and community-based counter-narratives; reference to Indian initiatives like Fact Check Unit and cyber psychology interventions
  • Synthesis across parts: Integration showing how group processes (a) enable terrorist recruitment (b) and how social media accelerates these dynamics (c), with policy-relevant recommendations for counter-terrorism and digital well-being

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Concept correctness20%10Precise definitions of social facilitation/inhibition with correct task-complexity distinction; accurate psychological profiling without stereotyping; nuanced understanding of social reality construction vs. objective reality; no conflation of related concepts (e.g., social loafing with social inhibition)Generally correct definitions with minor inaccuracies; basic terrorist profile with some stereotypes; superficial treatment of social reality construction; occasional conceptual confusionIncorrect or reversed definitions; highly stereotyped or purely sociological terrorist profile; conflates social reality construction with general media effects; significant conceptual errors
Theory & studies cited20%10For (a): Zajonc (1965), Cottrell (1972), Sanders (1981), Bond & Titus meta-analysis; For (b): Sageman, McCauley & Moskalenko's pathways, Kruglanski's significance quest theory, Moghaddam's staircase model; For (c): Festinger's social comparison, Sunstein's echo chambers, Pariser's filter bubble; Indian studies on social media and communal violenceMentions 1-2 major theories per part with some attribution errors; limited Indian context; missing contemporary developments in radicalization researchNo theoretical grounding or incorrect attribution; purely descriptive without research basis; outdated or irrelevant studies cited
Application examples20%10For (a): Sports performance under crowd pressure, exam anxiety in group settings; For (b): Profiles of Indian terrorists (e.g., Burhan Wani, Naxalite cadres), comparison with global patterns (ISIS foreign fighters); For (c): WhatsApp forwards and lynching incidents, TikTok influence on adolescent behavior, COVID-19 misinformation effectsGeneric examples without Indian specificity; some relevant illustrations but lacking depth; limited connection between theory and real-world applicationNo concrete examples; purely theoretical treatment; inappropriate or factually incorrect illustrations
Multi-perspective analysis20%10For (a): Biological (arousal), cognitive (attention), and social (evaluation) perspectives; For (b): Individual, group, and societal levels of analysis; critical examination of 'terrorist personality' debate; For (c): Platform design, user psychology, and sociopolitical factors; balanced view on social media's dual potential for harm and social goodTwo perspectives covered adequately; limited critical engagement with controversial aspects; some acknowledgment of complexity without thorough explorationSingle perspective dominance; uncritical acceptance of one framework; no recognition of alternative explanations or debates in the field
Conclusion & evaluation20%10Synthesizes all three parts into coherent framework on collective behavior and extremism; evaluates limitations of current research; offers evidence-based policy recommendations for India's National Security Strategy and digital governance; identifies future research directions in cyber psychologyBrief summary of each part without true synthesis; generic recommendations; limited self-critical evaluationMissing conclusion or mere repetition of points; no evaluation of arguments; irrelevant or impractical recommendations

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 II