In this blog post, we’ll examine the free-riding problem that arises in group projects from the perspectives of group selection and altruistic behavior, and consider evaluation methods to reduce free-riding as well as the reasons why we should live altruistically.
When working on group projects, it is not uncommon for students to shirk their assigned tasks and pass the burden onto other group members. This behavior is commonly referred to as “free-riding.” When free-riding occurs, it places a greater burden on students who work hard on the assignment, and it can lead to an unfair situation where students who did not participate actively receive grades comparable to those of their peers. So, what can be done to prevent free-riding? The method I propose involves fostering competition among groups through group projects while simultaneously introducing individual assessments based on the extent of each student’s contribution to the group activity. I drew inspiration for this approach from the “group selection hypothesis” explained in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’. Furthermore, while considering ways to prevent free-riding, I also began to reflect on why we should live righteously and why we should live altruistically.
First, I examined why free-riding is a problem from the perspective of group selection. Natural selection refers to the phenomenon in which individuals or groups possessing traits advantageous for survival and reproduction survive in greater numbers and produce more offspring, thereby increasing the proportion of those individuals or groups with those traits. Among these, selection in which differences between groups influence survival and reproduction is called group selection. In modern evolutionary biology, rather than simply viewing group selection as a process distinct from individual-level selection, there is widespread discussion of understanding it as part of multilevel selection that operates simultaneously both within and between groups. In particular, while selfish behavior may be advantageous within a group, it is important to note that groups with many members who act altruistically can achieve higher performance in intergroup competition. Therefore, if a group has many altruistic members, they are more likely to work harder on tasks and prioritize group assignments over individual ones by focusing on selection for the benefit of the group as a whole. As a result, the quality of group assignments improves, and the group is more likely to receive higher grades. From this perspective, assessment through group assignments does not appear to pose a significant problem.
However, problems arise when we examine the individual group members who received good grades. This is because altruistic group members work hard and earn good grades, while selfish group members can receive good grades without putting in much effort. Furthermore, since altruistic group members must complete tasks that selfish group members have neglected, they may receive relatively lower rewards compared to the effort they put in. Consequently, a situation arises where selfish group members benefit more than altruistic ones. Let’s also assume that both group members put in the same total amount of effort to earn grades in all courses. While the altruistic group member invests effort in both group assignments and individual assignments, the selfish group member can redirect the effort that should have gone toward group assignments to individual assignments. As a result, the selfish group member may receive a higher grade on individual assignments and the same score as the other group member on group assignments, potentially leading to a higher overall grade. This creates a situation where, even though both group members put in the same amount of effort, the self-interested member achieves better results.
Therefore, to prevent such outcomes, individual evaluation based on contribution to group activities is necessary. This does not mean requiring separate submissions for individual assignments, but rather evaluating what role each member took on within the group and how much effort they put into fulfilling that role. Of course, objectively assessing contribution is no easy task. However, rather than turning a blind eye to free-riding, it may be fairer to assess contribution—even if the method used lacks some objectivity. For example, scores assigned by group members through peer evaluation could be incorporated into the assessment, or the specific roles each individual took on in the group assignment could be documented, and their performance in those roles evaluated. While these methods cannot be considered perfectly objective, they can at least reduce the problem of those who made no contribution receiving the same evaluation as those who actively participated.
Second, I believe that assigning a much higher weight to group assignments compared to individual assignments is another way to reduce free-riding. If the weight for group assignments is low, students are likely to trust their teammates, set aside group work as a priority, and focus on their individual assignments. However, if the weight of group assignments is significant enough to have a substantial impact on grades, it would be difficult to free-ride by relying solely on teammates. This is because failing to participate in group assignments could result in significant personal disadvantages. Ultimately, by emphasizing the importance of group assignments while simultaneously evaluating individual contributions, we can take both group performance and individual responsibility into account.
Let’s apply this to the world we live in. Competition in the world we live in shares some similarities with academic competition. A group with many altruistic members may have an advantage in intergroup competition because its members cooperate with one another; however, within that group, a selfish individual may gain more benefits than an altruistic one under the same resource constraints and with similar levels of effort. In other words, while there is competition between groups, competition among individuals also exists. Furthermore, in competition between groups, the rewards individuals receive may vary depending on the extent of their contribution to the group. Therefore, the interests of the group and those of the individual do not always align, and both cooperation and competition can occur simultaneously within a group.
So, should we live selfishly? Or should we live altruistically? My answer is that we should live altruistically. Just as both group project scores and individual assignment scores are reflected in one’s grade, competition between groups and competition among individuals operate together in survival and social life. However, let’s consider survival competition from a broader perspective, such as war. The citizens of a nation defeated in war may suffer countless sacrifices. In other words, at least in such extreme situations, the outcome of competition between groups can have a far greater impact than the outcome of competition between individuals. To draw an analogy with grades, this is similar to a situation where the group project score accounts for a much larger portion of the total grade than the individual assignment score. In such a situation, acting selfishly—by aiming for a higher score on the individual assignment while reducing one’s contribution to the group project—can have a devastating effect on the overall outcome. Furthermore, if the group wins the competition, members may receive certain rewards or status based on the extent of their contribution to the group. This corresponds to the individual evaluation based on contribution to group activities mentioned earlier. This phenomenon is not limited to war. In human social life as well, intergroup competition and interpersonal competition coexist, and there are cases where individuals who contribute to enhancing the group’s performance are rewarded accordingly.
In summary, assigning a higher weight to group assignments than to individual assignments and introducing individual evaluations based on contribution to group assignments can encourage members to make choices that benefit the group and promote cooperation, thereby reducing free-riding. Just as academic evaluations include both group and individual assignments, competition between groups and competition between individuals coexist in our lives. This leads us to consider why we should live altruistically. Acting altruistically can increase the likelihood that the group to which we belong will achieve higher performance in intergroup competition; in particular, in situations where the outcomes of intergroup competition have a much greater impact than those of intragroup competition, acting for the group’s benefit can be important for the individual as well. Of course, acting for the group does not always result in greater personal benefit, and the relationship between altruistic and selfish behavior can differ between within-group and intergroup contexts. However, if members who contribute to the group are rewarded accordingly, and if group cooperation can enhance the group’s overall performance, acting for the group’s benefit can ultimately work to the individual’s advantage as well. Therefore, to create a society that minimizes free-riding and fosters mutual cooperation, we need systems that evaluate both group performance and individual contributions; from this perspective, we can reflect on the meaning of an altruistic life.
