In this blog post, based on the game theory hypotheses presented in ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’, I will examine ways to prevent free-riding in group activities and, building on that, reflect on why we should live righteously.
‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ explains human behavior through game theory and presents various scenarios. Using the seven hypotheses introduced in this book and the content in the latter part of the book, I will seek the optimal method to prevent free-riding and, based on this, reflect on whether there is a reason we should live righteously. Free-riding is extremely common in group activities. However, since group activities are often graded by the group as a whole, group members who worked hard end up receiving the same grade as those who free-ride. Furthermore, when free-riding occurs, the overall quality of the final product can decline, causing significant harm to the group members who worked hard. To prevent such situations, we can devise solutions using several hypotheses. First, if we apply game theory to group projects, we can think of the benefits gained as grades. Additionally, this situation can be viewed as one where the number of times the activity is carried out is not very high, assuming group projects are limited to one semester.
To achieve optimal group work, we can utilize the communication hypothesis and institutional mechanisms. In fact, in real-world situations, maximizing the benefits—that is, earning high grades—is not always necessary. However, since such situations contradict the premises established in books on evolutionary biology, we will exclude them here. In other words, we assume that all group members want high grades.
First, regarding the communication hypothesis: in game theory scenarios, if people communicate with one another, each individual’s altruism increases with each iteration. The first strategy based on this communication hypothesis is for group members to continuously check each other’s participation rates and progress on their assigned tasks during group activities. By consistently reminding group members who are trying to free-ride that their participation and progress are lacking, we can instill a sense of responsibility in them.
The second approach involves group members gathering after the group activity to discuss the previous session. By discussing the results of the group activity and the members’ participation rates together, they can point out what went well and what could have been improved, as well as identify shortcomings in the overall group activity and suggest areas for future improvement and specific methods to address them. Through these face-to-face group meetings, members can reaffirm their sense of responsibility for the tasks assigned to them during the group activity, and by ensuring that the group activity as a whole is conducted in a more organized manner, the quality of the results can be improved.
However, communication alone may not be sufficient to ensure that all group members actively participate in group activities. Therefore, it is also important to encourage participation through institutional mechanisms. Such institutional mechanisms could include peer evaluation methods and group activity participation logs. First, criteria are needed to identify members who are free-riding. After establishing these criteria, penalties should be imposed on members who fail to meet them. Additionally, awarding bonus points to members who have made significant contributions to group activities can encourage active participation from all members.
Peer evaluation involves group members assessing each other’s participation in group activities after the session ends. Assuming each member evaluates honestly, it should be possible to identify free-riders. Furthermore, the group activity participation log should be completed by the entire group, documenting which roles were assigned to each member and when and how those roles were carried out.
By having the group as a whole maintain a single log rather than having each member keep their own, the details of the activities can be reviewed comprehensively. Free-riders will have very few entries in the log, making them easy to identify; furthermore, bonus points can be awarded to members who took on roles that were not fully carried out due to free-riding and demonstrated active participation in the group activities, thereby encouraging engagement.
The reason this is the best method can be understood by considering the communication hypotheses presented in the book. In fact, among the seven hypotheses presented in the book, the scenarios outlined in most of them do not align well with group activity situations. In other words, the kin selection hypothesis, the repeated reciprocity hypothesis, the “birds of a feather” hypothesis, the costly signaling hypothesis, the group selection hypothesis, and the spatial structure effect are difficult to apply directly to group activity contexts.
However, in the case of the communication hypothesis, the situation described in the actual experiment aligns well with group activities. The very scenario in which a group invests a certain amount and receives a return on that investment can be applied to the context of group activities. First, the “amount invested” refers to the degree of participation in the group activity, and the “return on investment” is the benefit gained. As the experiment demonstrates, the more frequently communication occurs, the higher the participation rate becomes; thus, the argument that frequent communication can raise the overall activity level of the group gains validity. Furthermore, the mandatory participation method serves as a mechanism to encourage participation; unlike the traditional approach, which awards the same score to all group members based on the group’s overall output, this method assigns scores based on each individual’s level of effort. The very reason for free-riding is the benefit of receiving a high score relative to the effort one puts in; this method eliminates that incentive and creates a reason to participate actively in the activities.
Now, let’s broaden the scope and consider whether there is a reason to live righteously. The group activity situation is relevant here, and in this context, “righteous behavior” can be defined as “participating diligently in group activities.” Suppose the method described above were factored into grade calculations. In that case, we would naturally have a reason to behave correctly, because failing to do so would result in a loss. But what if such a system were not yet in place? Is there still a reason to behave correctly even when doing so does not result in a loss—and might even yield a benefit?
Generally, we believe that to maximize our benefits, we need to live correctly. To begin by considering what it means to live rightly, it involves acting to maximize the benefits of the group to which one belongs—including altruistic choices—and refraining from actions that harm others for one’s own gain. The reason we should live rightly is simple: from a long-term perspective, the more rightly we live, the greater the benefits we ultimately gain compared to if we had not lived rightly.
Consider the simplest scenario: when everyone within a group lives righteously, the benefits they receive are maximized, which is why there is a reason to live righteously. However, if there are people within the group who do not live righteously, those who do live righteously suffer losses and lose their reason to continue doing so. To prevent such situations, institutional mechanisms are in place in real life. These mechanisms convert the benefits that could be gained from acting improperly into penalties, making them smaller than the benefits of acting properly; in some cases, they may even exclude such individuals from the group.
In practice, we use the institutional mechanism of law to define “right conduct” to a certain extent; when this is violated, fines or criminal sentences are imposed, forcing the offender to suffer significant penalties.
Through such “laws,” the system in the world we live in operates so that the benefits gained from not living rightly are made smaller than the disadvantages incurred as a result of such behavior. For example, if you are caught parking in a no-parking zone—other than designated areas or paid parking lots—you will be fined. In this case, since the fine and other penalties incurred upon being caught may outweigh the convenience gained from parking in a no-parking zone, the benefits of engaging in improper behavior are ultimately transformed into losses due to the institutional mechanism of the fine system.
There is another reason why we should live righteously. In addition to precisely defined laws, there are “morals” and “ethics”—norms tacitly agreed upon within a group. Morals and ethics are less enforceable than laws. However, if someone violates these norms within a group, other members of the group will be less likely to cooperate with that person in future situations. In other words, from the moment one fails to act correctly, the benefits they can gain will inevitably be minimized, and in severe cases, there is even the possibility of being excluded from the group. However, in exceptional cases—such as when committing an illegal act when no one is watching, where one suffers no loss even by acting improperly, or when donating money or organs, where one acts properly but suffers a loss—the assumption that “one acts to maximize gain” alone provides no reason to act properly. Nevertheless, instances of acting properly occur frequently in our lives. Furthermore, there must be clear reasons why we engage in such behavior.
In fact, in such cases, we can consider the psychological factors of “conscience” and “happiness.” Since we all possess a conscience, if we commit an act that causes significant harm to others, the resulting pangs of conscience will cause us psychological distress. For example, if a hit-and-run occurs in a situation where no one is around, the perpetrator will likely feel intense pangs of conscience. There may even be cases where, after causing a traffic accident, the perpetrator reflects on the situation, feels remorse, and decides to turn themselves in. This “conscience” guides us to act correctly. As examples of actions that are right but result in a loss, consider organ donation or charitable giving; the sense of happiness, accomplishment, or pride derived from such righteous acts can also serve as a reason for a person to act correctly even if it means suffering a loss. In other words, the prospect of personal gain does not necessarily compel a person to act in a certain way. People do not act solely by pursuing personal gain after precisely calculating benefits and losses in every situation; rather, if they feel a pang of conscience even in a situation where they stand to gain, or feel happiness even in a situation where they suffer a loss, that can serve as a reason for acting rightly.
In summary, to prevent situations in group activities where a hardworking group member suffers a loss while a free-rider gains an advantage—and to encourage all group members to engage in “correct behavior”—we can introduce communication methods and peer evaluation systems. These methods can be thought of as similar to “laws and institutions” in our daily lives. In other words, these strategies to prevent free-riding operate in a manner similar to the principles of laws and institutions. Thinking more broadly, the reason we should live righteously is that, ultimately, we stand to benefit from laws and institutions. When these laws and institutions do not function properly, we have our conscience and happiness; these two psychological factors guide us to act righteously regardless of personal gain or loss. This explanation goes beyond the game theory perspective—which assumes people act to maximize their own gain—and better describes our actual lives.
