In this blog post, we’ll focus on human choices based on expected benefits, the free-rider problem in group activities, and the role of “institutions and education.”
Free-Riding and Selfish Choices in Group Activities
Before we begin, let’s compare the society we live in with group activities involving just a few people—or at most, a few dozen. Although the scales are vastly different, each group consists of members with distinct personalities, and the group’s unique character is shaped by those members. Among the members, there may be a leader who guides the overall direction, or someone who simply performs their assigned tasks diligently. However, group work is often perceived as a significant burden—so much so that there’s even a joke among college students that “group work only breeds distrust in people.” The primary cause of this problem is often attributed to “free riders”—those who take advantage of group work without contributing their fair share. These individuals do not actively participate in group work, citing various reasons or, at times, offering no excuse at all. Ultimately, the students who are under pressure end up taking on the share of work meant for that group member, while the free-rider reaps the same rewards as the others despite making only a minimal contribution to the final product—all at the expense of the entire group.
This problem has persisted in universities for a long time, and efforts to resolve it have been ongoing. One of the most common solutions is for the group leader to report students with low participation to the professor. However, the professor may interpret this as an internal teamwork issue within the group and penalize the other group members as well. Furthermore, converting group assignments into individual assignments is often difficult to implement given the nature of the assignments, and no matter how severe the penalties, it is not easy to apply them effectively in every situation.
Accordingly, we propose a “warning card” system as a mechanism to encourage group members to actively participate in group activities. If this system gains widespread acceptance and is adopted as a method for evaluating group work, it could foster a culture of group collaboration where members receive fairer rewards based on their individual contributions.
Altruistic People and Selfish People
Altruistic behavior refers to actions that benefit others but result in a loss for the person performing them. The moral imperative to help others—even when it results in personal disadvantage—is difficult to put into practice, and for this reason, situations can arise where both the individual and others end up suffering losses. A prime example of this is the “tragedy of the commons.” In the case of a resource used by everyone—such as a communal pasture—even if rules are established for the benefit of all, those who break the rules end up gaining more personal benefit. If this behavior is repeated, the resource eventually becomes depleted, causing everyone to suffer losses. While the resource could be used sustainably if everyone exercised restraint, this tragedy occurs because individuals judge that the personal benefit gained from breaking the rules outweighs the costs.
Let’s assume that in a group activity involving five people, if each person actively participates by contributing 10 units of effort, the total benefit to the group is 50. If one unit of effort yields one unit of benefit, each person can reap results proportional to their effort. However, if one group member freeloads, the total benefit for the group will be capped at 40; and given the nature of group work, even a single weak link can significantly reduce the quality of the work, potentially leading to an even lower outcome. Even if the other members put in extra effort to make up for the shortfall and ultimately achieve a result of 50, they end up expending far more effort than the reward they receive.
In this situation, a free-rider who fails to do their share of the work may achieve results comparable to those of other group members without exerting any effort at all. Someone who prioritizes easily earning high grades would prefer to reap the rewards without any effort, even if it means giving up the opportunity to contribute to a better outcome through active participation. Moreover, investing the time saved in individual assignments could actually be a strategy to achieve even higher grades. Thus, free-riders who prioritize their own interests even at the expense of others can be called “selfish individuals,” while those who participate diligently in group activities—even though they know this strategy is personally advantageous—can be likened to “altruistic individuals.”
A Solution for Group Activities: The “Warning Card” System
The warning card system in group activities is similar to the warning card system used in sports. The key difference, however, is that while in sports a referee issues warning cards, in group activities, all group members—including the group leader—have equal authority. The system is simple: after the group activity concludes, each member can privately issue warning cards to other members (excluding themselves) via individual reports or other methods. Of course, they may also choose not to issue any warning cards. Subsequently, based on the warning cards each person has received, the group activity score may be partially deducted, may not be recognized at all, or may be awarded in full without any deductions.
Warning cards are divided into two types: red cards and yellow cards. A red card counts as 1 warning point, and a yellow card counts as 0.5 warning points; a single person cannot be issued both types of cards at the same time. Therefore, if there are n+1 group members, the maximum warning points a single person can receive is n points. The reason for having both red and yellow cards is to prevent behavior where participants try to avoid receiving a red card by participating only minimally if only red cards were in use. Depending on the total warning points, the group activity score may be partially deducted or may not be recognized at all.
If the warning points are less than n/4, the group activity score is awarded in full without any deductions. If the warning points are 4/n or more but less than 2/n, one-fourth of the group activity score is deducted; if they are 2/n or more but less than 3/4n, half is deducted. Finally, if the warning points are 3/4n or more, the group activity score is not awarded at all. The reason for imposing penalties in stages based on warning points is to avoid the extreme outcomes of either fully awarding or completely withholding points based on a single criterion.
The Significance of the Warning Card System and the Role of “System and Education”
The warning card system prevents free-riders from easily obtaining group activity points by imposing sanctions on the scores they expect to receive. With the exception of a few who are not interested in the points themselves, most people will participate actively in group activities simply because of this system. Even if they do not, the points received by such group members are likely to be lower than those of other members, which can help reduce the relative sense of deprivation felt by members who participated diligently. Furthermore, since all group members—not just the group leader—have equal authority, this system can also help reduce, to some extent, problems that might arise from being swayed by a specific individual’s emotions or subjective judgments.
Of course, this system will not fundamentally change the tendency to free-ride. Therefore, it is difficult to completely resolve the underlying problem. However, it is expected that participants will gain valuable insights through the experience of receiving fair compensation commensurate with the effort they put in.
Why Should We Live Righteously?
I do not believe that we must necessarily live righteously in every situation. Looking back on the choices we’ve made so far, people often end up making choices they consider “better” for themselves rather than those they believe are “right.” Let’s assume that “right” here refers to altruistic behavior, while “better” refers to choices that bring greater personal benefit.
When judging which choice is better, we consider not only morality and ethics but also the consequences that will result from that choice and any feelings of guilt that may follow.
Consider a situation where a firefighter risks his life to enter a building engulfed in intense flames to rescue a trapped child. Before taking action, he would have weighed two options. The hope of saving the child and the resulting sense of fulfillment, along with the guilt he would feel if he did not go in, would have driven him toward the building. On the other hand, the danger he would face and his concern for the family he would leave behind would have made him hesitate. He would have acted not because one option was “more right” than the other, but because he ultimately judged it to be the more meaningful and better choice for himself. It is difficult to argue that there is an absolute imperative to always make the “right choice.” Moreover, since the standard of “rightness” itself can vary from person to person, there are limits to using it as an absolute standard.One might ask whether society could survive if everyone acted solely in their own self-interest. However, society has persisted even though people have long made choices based on their own interests. The reasons for this can be attributed to “institutions” and “education.”Education is the process by which society teaches individuals what constitutes “right behavior” within that society. Furthermore, institutions encourage socially desirable behavior by offering rewards for such actions and imposing sanctions when they are not followed. Through these systems of education and institutions, people naturally come to factor altruism into their decision-making process; as a result, they end up choosing altruistic actions even when, on the surface, they appear to offer no personal benefit or may even entail a loss.
