Revision summary
Meenu states a seva attitude and never attends the NGO camp — a classic attitude–behaviour split. Planned-behaviour theory adds norms and perceived control; a messy camp can fail a vague love of the poor. She may be managing a saintly front, reducing dissonance, or morally licensing a past token hour. Disgust, empathic distress, helplessness, reactance, and missing ‘if-then’ plans also fit. Judge the pattern as unfinished values unless anxiety or depression is the freeze; change needs a small, accompanied first act.
Model answer
Introduction
Meenu’s talk is a pro-social attitude; her feet never arrive at the NGO. Psychology treats this as an attitude–behaviour gap, not as a simple lie or a simple saint. Several mechanisms can explain the same surface: words of seva, refusal of the actual queue of clothes and medicines.
Body
Attitude–behaviour gap
- LaPiere showed that stated attitude and actual conduct can split; Meenu’s “I love social service” is a verbal attitude with no behavioural counterpart.
- Ajzen’s theory of planned behaviour: intention needs attitude plus subjective norms plus perceived behavioural control. If she thinks “I will look clumsy,” or “my parents did not approve unpaid work,” intention dies before the Saturday camp.
- Specificity: she may love an abstract “poor” and dislike this NGO’s messy godown; Fishbein–Ajzen say general attitudes predict general talk, not a dated shift.
Impression management and social desirability
- She harvests identity among friends: seva is a high-status trait in Indian middle-class talk, like “I read the Gita.”
- Goffman’s presentation of self: the front stage is the canteen boast; the back stage is a Sunday of shopping.
- Social-desirability bias: she may even believe the boast in the moment (self-deception), not only fake it (other-deception).
Cognitive dissonance and rationalisation
- Festinger: holding “I am a social worker” and “I never go” is uncomfortable; she reduces dissonance by trivialising the NGO (“it is just photo distribution”), by over-claiming future time, or by avoiding the friend who invites her.
- Moral licensing: a past college NSS hour, or a Diwali packet, is used as a licence to refuse the next ask.
Deeper motives that look like hypocrisy
- Class and disgust: contact with poverty can trigger contamination fear (Rozin) or status anxiety; clothes-and-medicine camps make suffering visible.
- Empathic distress, not empathy: she avoids the camp because others’ pain floods her, and she has no regulation skill (Batson’s distinction).
- Locus of control and efficacy: “one camp changes nothing,” a learned helplessness that protects inaction.
- Competing identities: exam, romance, or family honour of not mixing; the seva-self is a possible self (Markus) that never gets a calendar slot.
- Reactance: repeated asks from the friend’s father feel like pressure, so she refuses to protect autonomy (Brehm).
- No implementation intention: Gollwitzer — she never formed “If it is Sunday 9 a.m., then I take bus 21 to the camp.”
What is less likely, but possible
- Pure Machiavellian cynicism: using friends. Possible, not necessary.
- Clinical social anxiety or depression: genuine freeze, which still needs naming rather than only moral scolding.
Psychologically fair judgement
- Call the pattern hypocrisy of value-expression without value-consummation, unless a clinical freeze is shown.
- Change would need a small first act, a peer who goes with her, a role with control (registration desk, not forced hugging), and a less preachy ask.
Flow diagram
flowchart TD T[Talk of seva] --> G[Attitude behaviour gap] I[Impression dissonance] --> G A[Avoidance low control] --> G G --> N[No NGO time]
Conclusion
Meenu’s conduct is best read as a gap between a socially desirable attitude and unplanned, low-control, possibly avoidant behaviour. Psychology names impression management, dissonance, disgust, distress, and missing implementation — not only a bad character in one word.
Quick related
Students also ask
-
Is Meenu simply a liar?
She may be lying to friends. She may also be self-deceived. Psychology tests mechanisms; a single moral label stops inquiry.
-
Would forcing her to the camp fix the attitude?
Forced contact can create reactance or genuine dissonance-led change. A chosen small role with a friend present is the surer path.
Same topic · past papers
UPPSC has asked this before
These previous-year questions sit on the same topic. Open one to practise the earlier ask.
More from this paper
Q1 · UPSC Mains 2019 · UPGS4 · 8 marks · Solution
What is ethics? Explain its role in human life.
Ethics and Human Interface
Ethics is systematic reflection on right, duty, and the good life, distinct from mere custom or statute. Aristotle, Kant, dharma, and Gandhi supply maps of habit, respect, role, and means. It guides choice when interest and fear pull apart, and it makes queues and contracts possible. In public life it appears as truthful noting and a speaking order. It also forbids imposing a private creed on a citizen.
Q2 · UPSC Mains 2019 · UPGS4 · 8 marks · Solution
What is the process of strengthening the moral values? Whether strengthening of moral values helps in character-building? Discuss.
Civil Service aptitude and values
Values grow by habituation, trusted models, apology, and institutions that reward fairness. Public reason asks a value to be justified beyond the clan. Character is those values become a stable will when unwatched. Strengthening helps character only when the act meets cost and the office does not punish honesty. A drilled honour that refuses fact is rigidity, not republican character.
Q3 · UPSC Mains 2019 · UPGS4 · 8 marks · Solution
Write short notes on: (A) Ethical responsibilities of public servant. (B) Public interest and the right to information.
Probity in Governance
Ethical responsibility is fidelity to the Constitution, truthful files, neutrality, and citizen-centric delivery. Illegal oral orders are answered on file, not in secret obedience. Public interest is the open community’s welfare, not office comfort. RTI 2005 makes information the rule; Section 4 and speaking orders serve that rule. Exemptions protect privacy and security; vendetta is not public interest.