In this blog post, I will examine the causes of free-riding in college group projects from an evolutionary biological perspective and expand this discussion to consider methods of punishment, communication, and education as a matter of social responsibility.
Recently, TV commercials featuring college students’ group projects have resonated with many viewers. Additionally, group chat logs from students who worked on group projects together are sometimes posted online. Most of these posts are shared to express frustration toward group members who deliberately avoid their responsibilities or act irresponsibly. As such, there is no shortage of posts addressing the conflicts that arise in group projects, and many people relate to them. Group projects are an inevitable part of college life. In a group project, four to five students who don’t know each other are assigned to a group within a single course to complete a task together. They select a topic, research materials, write a paper, and prepare a presentation as a team. Therefore, the project can only be completed smoothly if all group members participate diligently. A key characteristic of group projects is that the grade is typically assigned equally to all group members. Focusing on this characteristic, let’s explore—from the perspective of evolutionary biology—why free-riding occurs in group projects and how it can be addressed based on this understanding. Furthermore, let’s consider how we should address free-riding in society at large.
From the perspective of evolutionary biology, human behavior is viewed in relation to survival. In other words, if a certain behavior is adaptive for survival, the individual exhibiting that behavior will survive and pass on that trait to future generations; conversely, if it is not adaptive, such behavior will gradually disappear. Survival implies proving, through competition with other individuals, that one is better suited for survival. In other words, individuals who choose the method that yields maximum efficiency at minimal cost have a survival advantage. Based on the discussion presented in Choi Jeong-gyu’s ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, we can consider which of the two options—actively participating in group projects or free-riding—is more conducive to survival. The benefit I gain can be defined as the score minus the cost. The greatest benefit occurs when the group project is successful but I have free-ridden. Conversely, the most disadvantageous situation arises when I participate diligently but the group project fails. Since I have two possible courses of action—free-riding or participating diligently—the conclusion is that free-riding can yield a greater personal benefit regardless of whether the group project succeeds or fails.
The difference between free-riding and diligent participation in a group project ultimately stems from the relationship between the costs an individual bears and the benefits they gain. If the group project succeeds, even a free-rider can receive a score similar to that of other group members, yet they do not have to bear the actual costs of carrying out the project. In contrast, a diligent participant must invest time and effort regardless of whether the project succeeds. Consequently, a situation arises where free-riding appears to be a rational choice when considering only individual interests.
From an evolutionary biology perspective, to resolve the free-rider problem, the structure of group projects must be altered so that free-riding becomes a disadvantage for survival. To achieve this, the grading system can be adjusted so that the grade received for free-riding is at least 10 points lower than that for diligent participation, while diligent group members are awarded a small number of bonus points. For example, when a group project is not completed properly, free-riders would receive a lower score, while diligent participants would receive a relatively higher score. Even when the group project is successful, maintaining a certain score difference between free-riders and diligent participants can reduce the benefits of free-riding.
This ensures that the benefits of free-riding are always lower than those of active participation. This method seems very simple. However, it does not serve as a fundamental solution. Free-riders may have relatively little motivation to earn good grades. They may think, “It would be nice to get a good grade, but if not, so be it,” while free-riding. Therefore, it is difficult to change their attitude through punishment that merely lowers their grades. To prevent free-riding, more fundamental measures are needed.
We can explore ways to change the attitudes of free-riders through hypotheses that explain altruistic behavior in humans. The repeated reciprocity hypothesis posits that people engage in altruistic behavior under two conditions: the cooperation of the other party and a repeated situation. Consider a scenario where, if the other party cooperates, defection yields a greater benefit than cooperation, but if the other party defects, the outcome is more detrimental than mutual cooperation. When the other party cooperates and I have the option to defect, I can maximize my gain by defecting; therefore, a strategy of cooperating until the very last round and then defecting would be the most advantageous. However, if it is unclear how long the interactions will continue, mutual cooperation may be the more advantageous strategy in the long run. Another hypothesis, the communication hypothesis, posits that when people meet in person and communicate, they exhibit more altruistic behavior toward one another than when they do not. In fact, one could argue that it is rational to choose the strategy that maximizes individual gain, regardless of whether communication occurs. However, Juan Camilo Cárdenas’s “Tragedy of the Commons” experiment demonstrates that communication can have a significant influence on people’s cooperative behavior.
These two hypotheses appear to be somewhat related. Meeting in person and talking is a fairly meaningful act. When people meet, they reveal their true selves, exchange names, and get to know one another. They also spend time together while engaging in conversation. This process of spending time together becomes a process of building trust. The longer they spend time together, the higher the likelihood that they will become friends. The closer they become, the more likely they are to meet repeatedly. If they become close friends, altruistic behavior will emerge more easily. This can also be applied to group projects. The key is to have group members meet frequently for group activities. Although they are meeting to work on the assignment, the more often they meet, the better they will get to know one another and build trust. Free-riders may feel guilty about breaking the trust they’ve built with group members they meet frequently. Because they don’t want to disappoint them—and to encourage the others’ cooperative attitude—they may change their behavior and start participating more actively. However, this approach has its limitations. If free-riders don’t even attend group meetings, this method becomes a meaningless discussion. Therefore, a more fundamental approach seems necessary.
Is it possible to make free-riders themselves realize that they need to work hard on group assignments? There are various methods used to change people’s behavior. The most fundamental of these is education. If change remains difficult even after education, other methods are employed; if those still fail, discipline or the law are ultimately used to curb the behavior. If we can logically persuade free-riders of the reasons why they should participate actively, this could serve as a more fundamental solution. So, how can we answer the question, “Why is free-riding wrong?” This primarily becomes a discussion of moral judgment. Students chose a class that includes group projects of their own free will. Free choice comes with responsibility. As long as students choose and enroll in a class, they have a responsibility to complete it. At the very least, they also have a responsibility not to hinder other students’ participation in the class. If group projects are mandatory for course completion, students can fulfill their responsibility—arising from their free will in choosing the course—by participating diligently in the group projects. In addition to such moral judgments, one can also persuade students by highlighting the benefits, such as, “Active participation increases the likelihood of performing better on group projects.” By persuading free-riders through arguments that everyone in society can fundamentally empathize with and understand, it may be possible to change their minds.
So far, we have examined methods involving punishment, frequent communication, and moral persuasion. These three methods are generally applicable for changing human behavior. Therefore, even when used to prevent free-riding in group projects, they are relatively unlikely to provoke resistance. The best way to reduce the likelihood of free-riding is to use all three methods together. The most effective way to prevent free-riding is to reduce the likelihood of it occurring in the first place. Since these methods do not conflict with one another, they can be used together. For example, at the beginning of the semester, the instructor can explain why students must participate diligently in group projects and help students organize more frequent group meetings. Nevertheless, to prepare for the possibility of free-riders, rules and grading criteria can be established to prevent such behavior. Using these common-sense methods together to prevent free-riding in group projects will likely yield significant results.
So far, we have developed our argument based on the premise that “it is right to prevent free-riding in group projects.” In the section advocating for educational methods to prevent free-riding, we sought to persuade free-riders by explaining why this proposition is true. This raises a question: Do we have the right to educate free-riders? The reason we did not address this earlier is that this question leads to a discussion of whether “there is a reason to live rightly.” It is entirely possible to raise counterarguments, as morally instructing free-riders may diverge from the purpose of the course. However, the purpose of a lecture is to effectively convey the course material to the students. If the professor believes students can learn more effectively through group projects, they should help the students carry out those projects successfully. In this process, the professor’s appeal to students to make sound moral judgments can serve as a foundation for effective learning; therefore, it cannot simply be dismissed as deviating from the course’s purpose. When we extend the issue of group projects to society at large, this discussion takes on significant meaning.
In South Korean society as well, students receive a certain level of compulsory education, and the school curriculum includes content related to ethics. The 2022 revised curriculum also presents community competence, character, and growth as responsible citizens as key educational goals. In other words, society is persuading its members to live righteously. Moral education by thinkers such as Confucius has continued for 2,000 years, and moral norms likely existed in some form even before the invention of writing. So why does society insist that its members must live righteously? We can find the reason from the perspective of evolutionary biology. Just as each person’s life goals differ, so do the goals of each group. However, all individuals and all groups within society act toward their respective goals under the overarching premise of survival. For this reason, the issue of survival cannot be overlooked. Among the hypotheses regarding group survival is the group selection hypothesis. This hypothesis argues that groups with many altruistic members have a survival advantage. Evidence for this can be found in human history. In war, a group with many altruistic individuals would likely have had a higher probability of victory because they fought selflessly for one another. Furthermore, in the era of hunting and gathering that preceded agricultural societies, the probability of an individual successfully hunting was low; therefore, the more people who cooperated altruistically with the group, the higher the group’s survival rate would have been.
By drawing an analogy between group projects and society, we can reflect on the role of society and the responsibilities of its members. In the context of group projects, the instructor could persuade students—under the goal of a successful class—that “free-riding is unacceptable.” If it is true that the more members who behave properly, the higher the group’s survival rate, then society can also educate its members to “live properly” for the sake of the group’s survival. Furthermore, students who chose a class with group projects had a moral responsibility to do their part within the group. Similarly, individuals living in the society to which they belong have a responsibility, as members of that society, not to undermine its goals or unjustly infringe upon the interests and rights of others.
An individual’s perspective can differ greatly from that of society. From an individual’s perspective, pursuing immediate gains may seem more appealing than sacrificing for the group. This is because they believe it will better ensure their own survival. Consequently, a clash of values is inevitable between a society that demands altruistic behavior and individuals who pursue their own interests. Some may wonder how much they are willing to sacrifice, while others may feel there are certain things they cannot compromise on. Still others might argue that it is wrong to force individuals to make sacrifices that are too great. People around the world will have different views on these moral judgments, and it is difficult to say that any one standard is absolutely correct. Since it is impossible to make a blanket judgment about what is right and what is wrong, we cannot simply say in abstract terms that “we must live righteously.” However, this does not mean there is no reason to live righteously. To summarize, society can educate its members to live righteously and encourage them to put this into practice. Furthermore, individuals have a responsibility to learn and internalize what society requires in order to function within it. However, how to interpret and accept morality in specific situations is a matter for the individual, and no one can unilaterally impose it on another.
Due to structural issues, group projects can lead to “free-riding,” which reflects a moral deficiency among group members. To resolve this, legal, scientific, and educational approaches were proposed. Among these, the educational approach—which argues that free-riding must be prevented through the moral education of group members—demonstrates that students bear moral responsibility. Thus, instances of free-riding in group projects convey a message about the moral responsibility individuals hold within society. Society is a collective formed by its members for a specific purpose. Members obtain the benefits necessary for their individual survival through the group to which they belong, while simultaneously bearing obligations and responsibilities toward society. Society, in turn, is maintained and developed through the obligations and responsibilities of its members. In other words, the collective responsibility of each individual sustains society, and through this, an individual’s survival and stability in life are also guaranteed to a certain extent by society. As members of society, individuals need to live their lives while considering not only the rights and benefits they enjoy but also their responsibilities toward the community.
