This blog post looks at various examples of why people choose to act in an altruistic manner, ignoring social norms when their own interests are guaranteed.
In university classes, some students feel dissatisfied with group assignments, and when that dissatisfaction reaches a fever pitch, it often leads to conflict. This is because each member of the group has a different willingness to participate in group assignments, which leads to situations where some members contribute hard while others contribute less. The most problematic of these is “free riding.” Since the evaluation of group assignments is generally given to all members of the group equally, there is a problem where members who did not actually participate in the assignment receive the same score as their teammates.
The best way to prevent free-riding is as follows. Let’s take the example of a typical group assignment for a group of four. Assuming that all students want to avoid getting an F, after the first group assignment is completed, each group should select the top four contributors. Then, the students who were selected as the top contributors should form a group, and the students who were selected as the second, third, and fourth contributors should form new groups in the same way. In this case, a group consisting of students who are ranked fourth in terms of contribution would be at risk of receiving an F because all members of the group would be free riders. Therefore, everyone would try to avoid getting an F, and the likelihood of giving up free riding would increase. In addition, if the groups are reorganized in this way at the end of each assignment, each member of the group will strive to receive a higher contribution ranking in the assignment, which will improve overall assignment participation.
However, if someone in a group of free riders insists on free riding to the end and someone else completes the assignment, it is difficult to completely solve the problem of free riding. Therefore, it is also possible to consider introducing a “three-strike-out system” as a way to enforce the system. If a student is selected as the fourth-best contributor three times in a row, he or she will be given an F grade, regardless of the reason. This will minimize the problem of free-riding.
So, what is the root cause of free-riding? According to social norms, it would be the “right choice” for members of a group to share equal responsibility for a group assignment. Nevertheless, the reason for choosing free-riding is simple. Free-riding is beneficial to oneself. The aforementioned anti-free-riding measures also make individuals act to avoid disadvantages, not simply to act in a socially correct manner. As such, the criteria for determining a person’s behavior depends on whether it is beneficial to them or not. Of course, if it is beneficial and at the same time the right thing to do, they will be willing to act that way. Ultimately, the focus of the discussion is on how individuals judge whether an action is the right thing to do even though it is not beneficial to them. To this end, I would like to illustrate that individuals prioritize the pursuit of profit over right behavior through examples of altruistic behavior that is beneficial.
First of all, it can be defined that living right is acting altruistically. Then, what if living right is disadvantageous to an individual, and conversely, acting otherwise does not cause any substantial disadvantage? For example, consider a situation where cash is used for payment. When you go to a nearby beauty salon, the hairdresser often asks customers who want to pay by card, “Do you have cash?” Some department stores also offer discounts at the discretion of the store owner if you pay in cash. The reason why merchants and service providers prefer cash payments is that cash transactions are not recorded and therefore not subject to tax. As a result, the seller gains by avoiding taxes, and the customer gains by being able to use the service at a discounted price. However, such transactions are non-altruistic acts aimed at tax avoidance, and are not desirable from a legal standpoint. Since the reduced tax revenue must be covered by other taxes, this is tantamount to passing on one’s tax burden to others. However, from the consumer’s point of view, cash payment is more economical and less likely to be caught, so even if caught, most of the time the seller who requested cash is the only one punished. In fact, if cash payment is possible, many people take advantage of it to make a profit. This case shows that there are situations where people act unselfishly when there is no penalty.
Next, what if there are side effects of non-selfish behavior, but the side effects can be tolerated, and if the benefits are greater, how would you behave? Let’s take the case of Company A. A few years ago, Company A wanted to advertise its products, but due to a lack of advertising funds, it was unable to advertise in the mass media. At that time, Company A chose to post flyers in a wide area. They posted flyers everywhere, including in prohibited places, and people who saw the flyers became interested in the product. As a result, Company A was fined for illegal outdoor advertising, but the promotional effect was comparable to that of a TV commercial for the small fine. This strategy was an unintentional choice. Individuals were exposed to unnecessary advertisements and were at a disadvantage in the fair advertising market. However, Company A reaped great benefits and was later introduced as a unique marketing example, becoming known as a company that tried new things. As such, even if a non-selfish choice inevitably leads to losses, individuals make that choice if it can bring greater benefits, and society does not stop them from doing so.
Finally, there are cases where the price to be paid for acting non- selfishly for the sake of profit is quite high, but the price is not always paid. For example, consider the situation where a company embezzles public funds. The benefit would be the amount of money embezzled, but if caught, the price to be paid would be the loss of one’s job, a fine, and the loss of trust and honor. This cost is generally greater than the benefit, but only if you are caught. Therefore, the probability of being caught is also an important consideration in this situation. If the probability of being caught is low, the benefit is considered to be “(benefit) > (individual perceived probability of being caught) X (cost if caught),” which leads to non-altruistic behavior. Of course, the probability of being caught cannot be accurately measured and depends on the individual’s risk-taking propensity, but the fact that there are people in society who are caught for embezzlement shows that there are definitely individuals who take risks and engage in non-selfish behavior for the sake of profit.
The three examples above illustrate that if the benefits are greater than the costs, people are more likely to choose to engage in non-selfish behavior. In particular, the first and second examples suggest that the social atmosphere encourages or even encourages such behavior rather than discouraging it. However, the intangible benefits of increased trust and happiness among all members of society when everyone behaves correctly are not fully considered. If this part can be included, the interpretation of human behavior centered on the pursuit of profit will be improved in a more realistic and appropriate direction. Furthermore, as the concept of a “rational human” assumed in economics has been shown to be incomplete, I believe that a more comprehensive discussion that includes elements such as conscience and beliefs will lead to more rational and sympathetic conclusions.
