In this blog post, we’ll examine the causes of free-riding in group projects and ways to prevent it. Furthermore, we’ll reflect on why we should live with integrity and what criteria we should use to judge what constitutes right and wrong behavior.
There’s a phrase that sends shivers down the spine of any ordinary person who is currently in college or has graduated. The four characters “group project” often turn into a nightmare for students the moment they come out of a professor’s mouth. In dramas about college life, protagonists suffering from group projects are a staple, and the comedy show “SNL Korea” has even provided viewers with a sense of catharsis through skits that punish free-riders on group projects. Unfortunately, however, group projects do not seem likely to disappear from college life anytime soon. Professors typically assign group projects to foster teamwork among students or to have them collaborate on tasks that would be difficult to complete alone. In reality, however, it is often the case that other group members end up shouldering a heavier burden and suffering from stress due to “free-riders” who do nothing themselves yet try to take credit for the results. Ultimately, this means that working in a group is no better than working alone. Therefore, I sought to understand exactly what free-riding is and why it occurs, and I considered ways to prevent it. I also considered the fact that refraining from free-riding is an altruistic act, and reflected on whether we should live our lives by acting altruistically—that is, doing what is right.
To define free-riding more precisely, it occurs when a group is producing an outcome that has the characteristics of a public good—one that must be shared by the entire group—and an individual abandons their responsibility as a member of the group in order to pursue only their own benefit. There are roughly three main causes of free-riding. The first is that grades are often assigned to the group as a whole, regardless of each member’s individual contribution. This implies that if others are working hard, there’s no need for me to go out of my way to do the work. The second reason is similar to the first: a gambler’s mentality kicks in, where it doesn’t matter if one fails after attempting to free-ride. Since group assignments are something all group members are expected to complete anyway, the free-rider’s reasoning is that if they face a barrage of criticism from their peers, they can simply revert to being a normal group member—but if they succeed, they stand to gain a significant personal advantage. The final issue relates to the perspective of the victims: namely, the difficulty of communication among group members. Typically, group members are simply people who have come together for the assignment, so the likelihood that they are close friends is extremely low. Consequently, they may hesitate to properly convey their concerns to others out of fear that pointing out free-riding will lead to conflict within the group. Since some professors view such conflicts very negatively and factor them into the assignment’s evaluation, diligent group members find themselves in a dilemma—they are unsure whether to speak up or remain silent.
From the perspective of those assigning the assignment, free-riding is undoubtedly a behavior that must be addressed. This is because it causes immense time, mental, and physical strain on other group members and undermines the original purpose of group assignments. Consequently, many professors are striving to curb free-riding by employing various measures, such as implementing a peer evaluation system within the group. However, according to a 2013 survey of 522 college students conducted by “Alba-in,” a part-time job portal, 81% of respondents reported having experienced free-riding, and approximately 70% said they either did not confront the free-rider or limited their response to encouraging active participation.
To address this lack of success in penalizing free-riders in group projects, I propose the following method: after completing a group activity, each member should spend a set amount of time verbally describing their own level of contribution, followed by comments from others. The presenter must list at least three strengths and three weaknesses, and the remaining group members should offer comments to ensure that the ratio of strengths to weaknesses in the overall feedback is balanced.
There are several reasons why I believe this is the best approach. First, it takes personality traits into account. Most people dislike being publicly criticized by others for matters where their responsibility is clear. It’s not that they refuse to be criticized; rather, when criticized, the incident lingers in their memory and continues to bother them, and they feel a sense of shame as they ponder why they had to hear such remarks. Consequently, driven by a personal desire to make up for the criticism, they are compelled to work much harder than they did before being called out. This tendency is particularly common among people with strong self-esteem or those who are timid and introverted; since such individuals are common in society, they are also likely to be found among free-riders. For these individuals, this method has the positive aspect of potentially answering the question of whether they really need to do the work, while also allowing the rest of the team members to request their participation without feeling a significant burden. However, since too much stimulation can lead to stress or cause discord, I proposed maintaining a consistent ratio of praise to criticism to keep the atmosphere harmonious.
The second reason is based on the “Communication Hypothesis” introduced by Choi Jeong-gyu (2009) in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’. The Communication Hypothesis posits that direct communication between people stimulates altruism toward others in ways that are not immediately apparent, thereby encouraging altruistic behavior. This hypothesis has been discussed through experiments such as Cárdenas’s “Common Pool Resource Game,” which confirmed that when people can communicate directly with one another, they are more likely to exhibit behavior that considers the community’s interests. Although no single cause has been definitively established, factors such as mutual trust, a sense of camaraderie, and a sense of obligation to act altruistically—elements that anyone who has diligently worked on group projects would likely recognize—are frequently cited. Based on this, I concluded that it was not enough to simply complete the tasks; there needed to be a forum for open communication. Therefore, even if participants had nothing specific to discuss, I required them to list three positive and three negative aspects of their performance without fail, thereby maintaining a structure for communication. I believed that active communication would foster trust and a sense of camaraderie among group members, which in turn would naturally and smoothly prevent free-riding.
This “tragedy of the commons” game is structured so that participants decide how much of a shared resource each will take. While an individual’s benefit increases as they take more resources, if members take too many resources, the shared resource may be depleted, leading to a decrease in overall benefit. Ultimately, it shares a similar structure to the free-rider problem in that behavior aimed at pursuing individual gain can reduce the benefit of the group as a whole.
The final reason lies in the positive side effects of this approach. Most solutions that rely on negative incentives, such as point deductions or fines, lead participants to complete tasks out of fear of punishment, which may not be particularly beneficial for team morale. Since there is a stronger sense of being forced to participate, team members may develop a negative mindset—feeling they have no choice but to handle only what is assigned to them. Consequently, while this approach may encourage participation, it cannot be considered ideal in terms of fostering creative ideas or achieving strong results. In contrast, a free-rider prevention strategy based on communication not only prevents free-riding in and of itself but also incentivizes team members to participate in tasks without coercion; therefore, they are unlikely to approach the work with a negative mindset. Consequently, they are likely to approach tasks more proactively and produce better results in a more positive atmosphere.
Although the specific methods and forms differ, similar examples of these positive effects of communication can actually be found in Google’s organizational culture. What struck me during my visit to Google’s headquarters in the U.S. was that a great many people interacted with one another even outside of work. They played ping-pong during work hours, made and shared desserts together to foster a positive atmosphere, and used that atmosphere as a foundation to generate new ideas and produce excellent results. While it cannot be definitively stated that this organizational culture directly produced all of Google’s achievements, it was evident that free interaction and communication among members can play a positive role in shaping a creative organizational culture.
Of course, the method described here is only effective when all group members are present. It’s difficult to see results from people who don’t attend and merely offer verbal apologies. However, there is virtually no solution to this problem unless the course imposes significant penalties on group project scores based on individual participation. It is difficult to apply self-imposed solutions to those who skip meetings because they are not overly concerned about their grades. Therefore, the best method to prevent free-riding is a system where, after completing an assignment, group members exchange praise and constructive criticism with one another—a method that is effective only when all group members are present.
So far, we have considered ways to prevent free-riding from the perspective of the victims. However, the measures mentioned thus far have merely been attempts to induce participation through external intervention. To fundamentally resolve free-riding, we must provide an answer to the question of why one should not free-ride. Refraining from free-riding clearly means that I will have work to do and must act for the benefit of the group even if it entails some short-term loss. Such behavior—which benefits others but results in a short-term loss for oneself—can be described as altruistic or righteous. So, why should we live righteously in this way?
The first reason is that my unrighteous behavior causes the entire group to develop selfish tendencies, which will ultimately harm me in the long run. Let’s consider the free-riding scenario once more. If there are only one or two free-riders, the remaining members will suffer, but as the number of free-riders increases, the entire group will suffer. It is important to note that, in the short term, the benefit to a free-rider is always greater than or equal to that of someone who does not free-ride. This leads people to conclude that free-riding is a behavior that benefits them personally. According to game theory, since everyone is aware of and takes this fact into account, there is a high probability that everyone will act selfishly—that is, free-ride—resulting in harm to the group as a whole. Fortunately, the real world is different. Because the interests and interpersonal relationships of individual members of society are intricately intertwined, people often cannot easily act selfishly; moreover, there are highly altruistic individuals who do their best without being bound by such considerations.
Richard Dawkins’ (1976) “cave theory,” presented in ‘The Selfish Gene’, can be used to explain why such alarm behavior can also benefit the individual. This theory is one of several hypotheses that explain the behavior of a bird that first detects danger and sends a warning to other individuals. The idea is that when an individual who detects danger sends a warning, other individuals can respond to the danger together, and the individual who issued the warning can also avoid the risk of being left alone within the group. Such alarm behavior is observed in many gregarious animals; similarly, when humans are placed in situations like group projects, we can expect the person in the greatest hurry to act altruistically based on this principle. However, humans do not live solely by instinct. If we do not continue to live righteously, the person who has repeatedly engaged in altruistic behavior will grow weary of constant free-riding and come to expect that another altruistic person will emerge to help them. As a result, altruistic individuals will disappear from the group as a whole, and the entire group—including themselves—will suffer.
If the first reason for living righteously was based on a practical cost-benefit analysis, the second reason stems from social benefits. No matter how righteously we live, it is not easy for that fact to be recognized by many people. This is because people remember evil and sensational facts more vividly than good and simple ones. It can be said that all animals on Earth have developed selfish traits for survival, whether on an individual or collective level. Since this is instinctive, anyone is bound to make a few mistakes. Even if a person has performed good deeds several times and steadily built up a positive image, a single major mistake can wipe it all away. Once such a negative image is formed, it is difficult to return to the community to which one originally belonged. This holds true whether it is a school, a workplace, or a small group. Even when we make mistakes unintentionally, we can face such disadvantages; consequently, the disadvantages that result from not living righteously are likely to be even greater. For example, suppose a person who habitually practices altruistic behavior makes a mistake in an important matter because they didn’t sleep well for a single night. If that person apologizes—even belatedly—and makes an effort to rectify the situation, the likelihood of being excluded from that community is low. However, if a person who habitually lives only for themselves were to commit the same mistake, it is certain that the conditions for being reintegrated into that society would be much more stringent.
The final reason we should live righteously is that doing so brings personal mental benefits. While it is true that beginning to live righteously may result in short-term, direct, and material losses, on a personal level, it can provide psychological and moral satisfaction. The very fact of living righteously can make one feel that they are living a truly human life, and this brings numerous positive benefits—such as a sense of fulfillment, the discovery of a purpose in life, and a sense of stability. It is precisely because of these spiritual benefits that countless people around the world travel even to dangerous regions to perform volunteer work. Material and practical benefits are not the only things that matter for human survival. Material benefits, too, derive their value from the spiritual benefits they ultimately provide. If one lives without striving to live righteously—pursuing only visible benefits rather than spiritual ones—one may eventually find oneself wandering aimlessly, unable to discover a purpose in life, or experiencing spiritual desolation amidst material abundance. To prevent such negative outcomes and lead a life that pursues spiritual benefits, one must live righteously.
To live righteously, it is important to clearly determine what it means to live righteously. In the Middle Ages, witch hunts were considered socially righteous acts, and in Nazi Germany, the genocide of Jews was regarded as a righteous act. However, no one today would claim that those actions were righteous. Nevertheless, at least some people at the time firmly believed they were right and lived accordingly. This was because they interpreted “rightness” purely in utilitarian terms. The reasoning went something like this: the happiness felt by citizens outweighed the harm caused by killing witches, and the happiness felt by Germans outweighed the harm caused by “cleansing” the Jews. As a result, humanity has left many stains on history. To avoid repeating such mistakes, we must not judge altruistic acts purely from a utilitarian perspective based on benefits; rather, we must apply moral standards to filter out as many wrong actions as possible and practice only those actions we can agree are right. Unconditionally pursuing the firm belief that only oneself—or the group to which one belongs—is right is a dangerous practice that can lead to unacceptable events, such as witch hunts. However, as long as we remain mindful of this point, we can say that we must properly judge what constitutes right action and live our lives accordingly.
While discussing ways to prevent free-riding during a group project, I reflected on the reasons why we should live righteously. As a method to prevent free-riding, I proposed active communication among group members—including praise and constructive criticism—after completing the assignment, and I was able to glimpse the potential of this approach through real-world examples such as Google’s organizational culture. However, to fundamentally prevent free-riding, it is necessary for those who engage in it to realize why they should live righteously and put that understanding into practice. Therefore, I reflected on the reasons for living righteously and concluded that we should do so for the sake of both long-term benefits and spiritual well-being. Furthermore, to live righteously, we must consider both the interests of others and moral correctness in order to properly judge what constitutes righteous behavior.
