In this blog post, we’ll explore the free-rider problem that arises in group projects for college courses and discuss possible solutions.
It’s the day before the group project presentation, but there’s no sign of anything—not just the presentation script the protagonist asked a group member to prepare, but also the PowerPoint slides. There are four group members in total, including the protagonist, but no one has responded to his messages. In the end, the protagonist stays up all night researching and ends up completing both the PowerPoint slides and the presentation script all by himself. The group members, who show up completely unprepared for the presentation, are obviously 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—receiving a low grade because of group members who were free-riding—and reacted passionately.
The problem of free-riding 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 group members—receive more than their fair share. Not only in college classes but also in everyday life, we can find various types of free-riding, and everyone agrees that this is wrong. People who commit acts such as theft—taking the fruits of others’ labor without just compensation—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 that everyone does so? First, let’s return to the issue of free-riding in college classes.
How can we prevent free-riding and ensure that 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 is. Another method is to have group members divide the total score earned on a group assignment among themselves by mutual agreement. For example, if a group receives a total score of 80 points for an assignment, the members divide the 80 points among themselves based on their respective contributions and submit the result to the professor; that score then becomes 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 some students do not mind receiving a lower grade as a result of the contribution assessment. They view taking the course as the sole purpose and have no desire for a good grade. It will not be possible to encourage cooperation on group assignments by threatening these students with grade penalties. So, what method is 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 posits that discussions and the exchange of opinions among members of a society encourage altruistic behavior. This is because communication fosters a sense of moral obligation to engage in socially beneficial behavior. Furthermore, communication helps foster a sense of group identity among members and induces feelings of guilt in those who act selfishly, thereby providing motivation to behave appropriately. Even students who aren’t overly concerned about their grades may feel a pang of conscience when discussing the assignment with those who are being disadvantaged by their actions, and they may develop a sense of obligation to help them. This acts as a psychological burden, providing motivation to behave more cooperatively. Furthermore, since these effects grow stronger the more frequently communication occurs, opportunities for exchanging opinions should be provided multiple times throughout the assignment process. Of course, for group members who are sensitive about their grades, contribution assessments may serve as a stronger motivator for cooperation, making that method 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, they can require the submission of interim reports at each stage of the project so that group members can verify who is contributing to which parts. This clarifies the division of roles among group members and helps create an atmosphere that prevents free-riding.
Now, let’s expand the concept of free-riding to consider why people choose to live ethically. 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 out of fear of retaliation or in anticipation of rewards. Alternatively, as the Costly Signaling Hypothesis posits, it may be to demonstrate one’s 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 a righteous life.
If you were to persuade someone to live righteously, would it be convincing to say, “You’ll be punished if you do bad things,” or “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 if they feel they are not being rewarded despite living virtuously, their desire to live righteously will gradually fade. So, would it be effective to say, “Helping others is a way to demonstrate one’s abilities,” or “Society can only progress if everyone lives altruistically”? First, the former would be useless for people who have no 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 off-putting, making it difficult to serve as a fundamental motivation. The latter would be useless for people 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 alleviate this discomfort by acting correctly” 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 serve as fundamental motivations—inherent in every person—that are not significantly influenced by punishment or reward. Since the methods presented earlier provide rewards on an external level, it is difficult to sustain proper behavior in situations where such rewards are no longer offered. However, the approach of awakening a sense of moral duty and conscience to guide proper behavior is likely to be more effective in sustaining such 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 of and consent to why they must obey the law. Education should go beyond the mere transmission of knowledge and focus on fostering 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 a sense of moral duty and conscience.
As we have seen, the sense of moral duty and conscience inherent in every human being 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 intrinsic factor shared by all human beings. Therefore, by fostering communication and interaction among members of society, we can ensure that these factors function appropriately, thereby building a society where we can all live righteously.
