In this blog post, we’ll explore the free-riding problem that arises in group projects during college classes and discuss possible solutions.
It’s the day before the group project presentation, but there’s no sign of the presentation script or PowerPoint slides—not a single thing—despite having asked the group members for them. There are four members in total, including the protagonist, but no one responds to his messages. In the end, the protagonist stays up all night researching and completes both the PowerPoint slides and the presentation script all by himself. The group members, who show up unprepared for the presentation, are naturally unable to deliver a good presentation. As a result, the protagonist ends up receiving a D grade along with the other group members. This is an episode from “Cheese in the Trap,” a popular drama that aired earlier this year. Viewers strongly empathized with the protagonist’s plight of receiving a low grade due to freeloading group members and reacted passionately.
The problem of freeloading in group projects, which so many people can relate to, is a common occurrence in college courses that include group assignments. Many college students are stressed by this issue, and everyone condemns free-riding as improper behavior. Why is free-riding considered improper? The main reason is that group members who work hard on the assignment do not receive compensation commensurate with their efforts, while those who do nothing—or even cause harm to their teammates—receive more than their fair share. Free-riding can be found not only in university classes but also in everyday life, and everyone agrees that it is wrong. People who commit acts such as theft—taking the fruits of others’ labor without paying a fair price—or cutting in line to save their own time at the expense of others’ waiting time are subject to criticism. People are sensitive to such selfish behavior and emphasize the virtue of living righteously. So why should we live righteously, and what is an effective way to ensure everyone does so? Let’s first return to the issue of free-riding in university classes.
How can we prevent free-riding and ensure everyone participates diligently? Looking at the methods currently used in many schools, most involve group members evaluating each other’s contributions and imposing penalties on those who free-ride. However, since the methods for evaluating contributions and the scope of application vary from class to class, it is difficult to determine how effective this approach really is. Another method is to have group members divide the total score received for a group assignment among themselves by mutual agreement. For example, if a group receives a total score of 80 points, the members divide the 80 points among themselves based on their respective contributions, and then submit the result to the professor; this score is then reflected as their final individual grade. These methods can be seen as relying on retaliation against those who act selfishly, but they also have limitations. This is because there are students who do not care if their grades are lowered as a result of the contribution evaluation. They view the course merely as a requirement and have no desire for a good grade. It would be impossible to induce cooperation in group assignments by threatening these students with grade penalties. So, what method would be effective in preventing free-riding among students for whom grade penalties do not work well?
I believe the best way to prevent free-riding is to provide frequent opportunities for group members to communicate with one another. This can be supported by the communication hypothesis, one of the theories explaining altruistic behavior in humans. The communication hypothesis explains that discussions and the exchange of opinions among members of a society induce altruistic behavior. This is because communication fosters a sense of moral obligation to engage in socially beneficial actions. Furthermore, communication helps foster a sense of group identity among members and induces a sense of guilt in those who act selfishly, thereby providing motivation for desirable behavior. Even students who are not overly concerned about their grades may feel a pang of conscience when discussing the assignment with those who are being harmed by their actions, and they may develop a sense of obligation to help them. This acts as a psychological burden, providing motivation for more cooperative behavior. Furthermore, since these effects increase with more frequent communication, opportunities for exchanging opinions should be provided multiple times throughout the assignment process. Of course, for group members who are sensitive about grades, contribution assessments may serve as a stronger motivator for cooperation, making such methods more effective in some cases. However, the approach of appealing to moral obligation and conscience is likely to be effective regardless of whether students are concerned about their grades.
Furthermore, the role of professors or instructors is crucial in preventing free-riding in group assignments. Professors should regularly monitor the progress of the assignment and provide an environment that fosters communication among group members. For example, requiring the submission of interim reports at each stage of the assignment allows instructors to verify which group members are contributing to which parts. This clarifies the division of labor among group members and fosters an atmosphere that prevents free-riding.
Now, let’s expand the concept of free-riding to consider why people choose to live righteously. Why do some people choose to live righteously rather than adopting a free-riding strategy and acting selfishly? As the Repeated Reciprocity Hypothesis suggests, it may be because they fear retaliation or hope for rewards. Alternatively, as the Costly Signaling Hypothesis posits, it may be to demonstrate their capabilities through altruistic behavior in order to gain reproductive and social benefits. The argument that altruistic behavior increases society’s overall utility also holds some validity. However, I believe these explanations have limitations when it comes to identifying the fundamental motivation for living righteously.
If you were to persuade someone to live righteously, would it be persuasive to say, “Because you’ll be punished if you do bad things,” or “Because you’ll be rewarded if you live well”? For this reason, a person who has resolved to live righteously might revert to wrongdoing if a way to commit it without punishment arises, and the desire to live righteously would gradually fade if they feel they are not rewarded despite having lived virtuously. In that case, would it be effective to say, “Helping others is a way to demonstrate one’s capabilities,” or “Society can only progress if everyone lives altruistically”? First, the former would be useless for those without a desire to show off their abilities, and even for those who do have such a desire, the idea of acting rightly for this reason alone might be met with resistance, making it difficult to serve as a fundamental motivation. The latter would be useless for those who are indifferent to the overall welfare and progress of society.
However, stating that “if you see someone in distress and simply walk by, you will feel a pang of conscience, and you can resolve this discomfort through proper action” is an approach that can apply to everyone. This is because a sense of moral duty and conscience are concepts formed through communication and interaction with others, and no one lives without interacting with others. These concepts are fundamental elements inherent in all people and act as intrinsic motivations that are not significantly influenced by punishment or reward. Since the methods mentioned earlier provide rewards on an external level, it is difficult to sustain proper behavior in situations where such rewards are no longer provided. However, the method of inducing proper behavior by awakening a sense of moral duty and conscience is likely to be more effective in sustaining proper behavior, as it provides a fundamental and internal reward that alleviates psychological discomfort.
This principle applies not only to interpersonal relationships 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 duty and conscience, thereby guiding them toward proper behavior. For example, laws should be based not merely on deterrence through punishment, but on citizens’ understanding and consent regarding why they must obey the law. Education should move beyond the mere transmission of knowledge to foster students’ ability to cooperate with one another and make moral judgments. Through this, society as a whole can develop into a healthy community operated on the basis of moral obligation and conscience.
As we have seen, the sense of moral duty and conscience that every human being possesses explains why we must live righteously. When we pass by someone in distress or engage in wrongful behavior, we feel a pang of conscience and develop a moral obligation to help that person or act correctly in such situations. The motivation to resolve the inner discomfort caused by this moral obligation and pangs of conscience through righteous behavior is an internal factor shared by all humans. Therefore, by ensuring that these factors function appropriately through communication and interaction among members of society, we can build a society where we all live righteously.
