In this blog post, we’ll explore the free-rider problem that arises in university group assignments and discuss potential solutions.
It’s the day before the group project presentation, but the presentation script requested from the group members, along with the PowerPoint materials, are nowhere to be found. There are four members in total, including the protagonist, but no one responds to messages. Ultimately, the protagonist stays up all night researching and completes both the PowerPoint and the presentation script alone. The group members who show up unprepared on presentation day are unlikely to deliver a good presentation. Thus, the protagonist ends up getting a D grade along with the other group members. This is an episode from the popular drama ‘Cheese in the Trap’ that aired earlier this year. Viewers strongly empathized with the protagonist’s situation of receiving a low grade due to free-riding group members, sparking a heated reaction.
This issue of free-riding in group projects, which resonates with so many people, frequently occurs in university courses that include group assignments. Many college students stress over this issue, and everyone condemns free-riding as wrong. Why is free-riding considered wrong? The main reason is that it fails to reward the hardworking group members for their effort, while undeservedly rewarding those who do nothing or even harm the group. Freeloading can be found not only in university classes but also in daily life, and everyone defines it as wrong behavior. People who commit theft by taking the fruits of others’ labor without just compensation, or who cut in line to save their own waiting time by stealing others’ waiting time, become targets of condemnation. People are sensitive to such selfish behavior and emphasize the virtue of living rightly. So why should we live rightly, and what is an effective way to ensure everyone does? Let’s return to the free-riding problem in university classes.
How can we prevent free-riding and ensure everyone participates diligently? Looking at methods currently used by many schools, most involve group members evaluating each other’s contributions and imposing penalties on free riders. However, since the methods for evaluating contributions and the scope of application vary widely from class to class, it’s difficult to gauge how effective this method truly is. Another approach is to have group members divide the total points received for a group assignment among themselves by mutual agreement. For example, if a group receives a total of 80 points for an assignment, the members divide the 80 points based on their perceived contributions, submit the result to the professor, and that score becomes their final individual grade reflected in their GPA. These methods can be seen as utilizing retaliation against those who act selfishly, but they also have limitations. This is because some students simply don’t care if their grade is lowered due to the contribution assessment. They may only value taking the course and have no desire for a good grade. For these students, the penalty of a lower grade will not motivate cooperation in group assignments. So, what method is effective to prevent free-riding by students who are not swayed by grade penalties?
I believe the best way to prevent free-riding is to frequently provide opportunities for group members to discuss among themselves. This can be supported by the communication hypothesis, one of the hypotheses explaining altruistic human behavior. The communication hypothesis explains that discussion or exchange of opinions among members of a society induces altruistic behavior. This is because communication creates a sense of moral obligation to engage in socially beneficial actions. Furthermore, communication helps form a collective consciousness among members and induces guilt in those who act selfishly, providing motivation for desirable behavior. Even students unconcerned about grades may feel pangs of conscience when discussing the assignment with those harmed by their actions and develop a sense of obligation to help them. This acts as a mental burden, providing motivation for more cooperative behavior. Furthermore, the more frequently communication occurs, the greater this effect becomes. Therefore, opportunities for multiple exchanges of opinions should be provided during the task execution process. While contribution assessments may serve as a stronger motivator for cooperation among grade-sensitive group members, the method of appealing to moral obligation and conscience can be effective regardless of whether individuals are concerned about their grades.
Furthermore, the role of professors or instructors is crucial in preventing free-riding in group assignments. Instructors should regularly check on the progress of the assignment and provide an environment that facilitates communication among group members. For example, requiring interim reports at each task stage allows members to see who is contributing to which parts. This clarifies role distribution and fosters an atmosphere that discourages free-riding.
Now, let’s expand the meaning of free-riding and consider why people choose to live rightly. Why do some people choose to live rightly rather than adopt a free-riding strategy and act selfishly? As the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis suggests, it might be due to fear of retaliation and hope for reward. Or, as the costly signaling hypothesis posits, it could be to demonstrate one’s capabilities through altruistic behavior to gain reproductive and social advantages. The claim that altruistic behavior increases society’s overall utility also holds some validity. However, I believe these explanations have limitations in providing a fundamental motivation for living rightly.
If you were to persuade someone to live rightly, would saying “because you’ll be punished if you do bad things” or “because you’ll be rewarded if you live well” be persuasive? For this reason, someone who has chosen to live rightly might revert to wrongdoing if a way to avoid punishment for bad deeds arises. Similarly, if they feel they receive no reward despite living well, their desire to live rightly will gradually fade. So, is it effective to say, “Helping others is one way to demonstrate your abilities,” or “Society can only progress if everyone lives altruistically”? First, the former argument will be useless to those without a desire to show off their abilities. Even if someone has such a desire, they might reject the idea that they should act rightly for this reason, making it difficult for it to serve as a fundamental motivation. The latter argument will be useless to those indifferent to the overall utility and development of society.
However, stating that “If you see someone in distress and simply walk by, you will feel pangs of conscience, and you can alleviate this discomfort by acting correctly” is likely a method applicable to everyone. This is because a sense of moral obligation and conscience are concepts acquired through communication and interaction with others, and no one lives without interacting with others. These concepts act as fundamental motivations, deeply ingrained in all people as core elements that are not significantly influenced by punishment or reward. The methods proposed earlier provide external rewards, making it difficult for the right actions to persist once the rewards cease. However, methods that awaken a sense of moral obligation and conscience to guide proper behavior are more effective at sustaining it. This is because they provide a fundamental, internal reward by alleviating the discomfort within the mind.
This principle applies not only to relationships between individuals but can also be reflected in the structure and institutions of society as a whole. Laws, norms, and educational systems should be designed to stimulate individuals’ sense of moral obligation and conscience, thereby guiding them toward proper behavior. For example, law should be based not merely on deterrence through punishment, but on citizens’ understanding and agreement regarding why laws must be obeyed. Education should progress beyond mere knowledge transfer to cultivate students’ ability to cooperate with each other and make moral judgments. Through this, society as a whole can develop into a healthy community operating on the basis of moral duty and conscience.
As we have seen, the moral sense of duty and conscience inherent in every human being explains why we must live rightly. When we pass by someone in distress or act improperly, we feel pangs of conscience. In such situations, we develop a moral sense of duty—a feeling that we must help that person or act correctly. The motivation to resolve this inner discomfort caused by moral obligation and the pangs of conscience through right action is an internal factor inherent in all humans. Therefore, through communication and interaction among members of society, we can ensure this factor functions appropriately, thereby building a society where we can all live rightly.
