In this blog post, I’ll examine the causes of free-riding in group projects and ways to prevent it, and further explore why we should live ethically from the perspectives of altruistic behavior and reciprocity.
What are the types and causes of free-riding?
Have you recently seen a post on social media with a title like, “Looking for free-rider 000, who vanished on the day of the group project presentation,” accompanied by a composite sketch? Many people criticized the person who had gone missing, and some even took photos of them when they ran into them on campus and sent them to the post’s author. This episode, which might seem dangerous at first glance, turned out to be a campaign to raise awareness of and prevent “free-riding”—a term newly defined as the behavior of receiving the same grade despite playing no role in a group project. So, what are the causes of this kind of free-riding, and how can it be prevented?
There are various types of free-riding: the “absentee type,” who claims to be unable to participate in group projects due to illness or urgent commitments; the “avoidance type,” who attends group projects but refuses to take on a role by claiming they don’t know how to do anything; and the “superficial type,” who attends group projects but uses the time to work on their own individual assignments. Such free-riding behavior shares the common trait of failing to properly fulfill one’s role in group projects and causing harm to others; its causes can be broadly categorized into two main types.
Why is teamwork so important in group projects?
First, “teamwork” is the most highly valued virtue in group projects, and there is a reason for this. Teamwork refers to “cooperative actions or tasks among team members, or their solidarity; it is when team members fulfill their responsibilities according to their respective roles and act cooperatively to achieve a common goal.” Accordingly, the best way to ensure that a group project’s final product receives a good evaluation is to demonstrate that all participants gave their best effort. Consequently, when there are only a few non-participants, it is more beneficial for the group’s overall image to proceed as if everyone had participated rather than to single out one or two members for exclusion. Free-riders exploit this very point, assuming they will face no significant consequences even if they shift their responsibilities onto others, and thus choose to abstain or pass the blame.
Another reason is that group projects are evaluated based on the final outcome, not on individual ability. In group projects, the focus is on the outcome achieved collectively by the group members, rather than how individual members demonstrated their abilities. Consequently, even if an individual gives their best effort, the credit is divided equally among the group, which can lead to a situation where those who work harder feel unfairly treated. As a result, some group members may choose to participate only minimally or not at all, leading to partial free-riding.
How can free-riding in group projects be prevented?
To address this, one proposed solution is to introduce an evaluation system that assesses not only the final outcome but also the process leading up to it. This involves requiring each group member to specify their assigned role during the project development process, evaluating the final product—which reflects each member’s contribution—using the existing criteria, and then incorporating positive peer evaluation among group members.
First, requiring members to specify their assigned roles ensures that their contributions are clearly evident in the final product, thereby indirectly demonstrating their individual abilities. Consequently, all group members will adopt a more proactive attitude toward difficult or high-responsibility tasks. Since members can showcase their abilities by taking on roles that others find challenging, they will participate more actively in such tasks.
Meanwhile, when positive peer evaluation among group members is introduced, rather than excluding team members, positive evaluations of those who performed well can help identify members who participated relatively less. Since this is a peer evaluation, positive feedback will be distributed evenly among group members; even if this is not the case, free-riders can be identified using a relative standard without damaging the image of teamwork. If this system is implemented, members who shirk their responsibilities in group assignments will receive fewer positive evaluations in subsequent peer evaluations; consequently, individual members will do their best in group activities.
How are altruistic behavior and reciprocity connected?
We have examined free-riding in group assignments and discussed potential solutions. Free-riding in group projects is behavior that harms others in pursuit of one’s own convenience or benefit. If we go beyond simply avoiding harm to others—which is the opposite of free-riding—and consider actions that benefit others as the “right” thing to do, do we have a reason to live righteously? Of course we do. Taking the free-riding example discussed earlier, actively participating in group projects can be viewed as the “right” thing to do. The methods for preventing free-riding presented earlier are based on reminding individuals of the reasons why they should not free-ride. Therefore, we can expand these prevention methods into reasons for engaging in the right behavior in the following way.
Specifying each individual’s role in group projects encourages group members to adopt a more positive attitude toward taking on responsibilities or difficult tasks, as they want to demonstrate their abilities, which will be reflected in their evaluation. This can be explained by the costly signaling hypothesis discussed in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’; according to this hypothesis, individuals may engage in behaviors that entail certain costs in order to demonstrate their abilities or characteristics. Taking on a difficult role in a group project can also be viewed as a behavior that involves incurring costs to send a signal demonstrating one’s abilities. The costly signaling hypothesis can also be applied to activities such as volunteering or charitable giving. In the case of volunteering or donating—activities that do not yield direct economic benefits on the surface—individuals demonstrate that they have the financial and temporal resources to spare by incurring the costs associated with these activities.
Furthermore, when peer evaluation is introduced in group projects, the pressure of knowing how one will be evaluated later can encourage group members to participate more actively in group activities. This can be explained from the perspective of reciprocity, as discussed in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’. Reciprocity is a concept that describes the behavior of helping one another in situations involving repeated interactions with others. G. S. Wilkinson demonstrated the possibility of reciprocity by studying food-sharing behavior among vampire bats. Observations revealed that vampire bats shared their blood with companions who had been unable to find food; it appeared that not only kinship but also previous interactions and the likelihood of future mutual assistance were related to this food-sharing behavior. This research serves as an example demonstrating that, within repeated relationships, individuals can remember past acts of assistance and engage in reciprocal behavior.
Why should we live righteously?
The two hypotheses examined earlier can also be viewed within an evolutionary context. ‘The Selfish Gene’ understands humans within the evolutionary process of transmitting and preserving genes, explaining natural selection from the perspective of genes. This does not mean viewing humans merely as vessels for genes, but rather attempting to explain the various behaviors that emerge during the process of gene transmission across generations from a gene-centered perspective. So, does refraining from harming others actually contribute to the preservation and reproduction of genes? ‘The Selfish Gene’ explains that even behaviors that appear altruistic at the individual level can work to the advantage of gene transmission and survival through mechanisms such as kin selection and reciprocity. Therefore, rather than simply positioning self-sacrificing behavior to help others as the opposite of selfish behavior, it can be understood from the perspective of long-term interactions and evolutionary benefits.
In this way, a person who engages in altruistic behavior is more likely to receive positive evaluations from others and to receive help in return through reciprocity. In other words, it becomes clear that such behavior can place a person in a favorable position for maintaining social relationships and cooperating from a long-term perspective. This explains why altruism has coexisted with selfishness despite the countless evolutionary processes humanity has undergone since its emergence.
Some argue against the notion that one should pursue righteous behavior, contending that sacrificing one’s own interests for the benefit of others is foolish. However, I propose redefining the meaning of “self-interest.” Those who hold this view tend to regard only short-term and direct benefits as their own interests. Yet, as illustrated by the examples mentioned earlier, benefits gained indirectly through altruistic behavior in the long term can also be advantageous to oneself. Furthermore, mental satisfaction or the positive image one gains through the process of forming social relationships can also be beneficial to oneself. This suggests that those who argue one does not need to live righteously have failed to properly grasp the scope of one’s own interests. When applied to the free-rider problem, contrary to their claim, the free-rider actually pays the price of sacrificing their long-term and indirect benefits in pursuit of short-term gains. If an entire human life were to unfold within a limited space over a short period of time, the argument in question might be valid. However, humans generally live by forming long-term social relationships. In a broad sense, this means that to pursue one’s own interests, one must live righteously. Therefore, we must live righteous lives.
