In this blog post, we’ll examine the causes of free-riding in college group projects, propose college students’ academic records and affective domain assessments as ways to prevent it, and reflect on why we should live with integrity.
Naver’s popular webtoon “Cheese in the Trap” has resonated with readers by depicting various episodes from college life through the eyes of Hong Seol, an ordinary female college student. Among the episodes that particularly resonated with many readers is one about group projects. In this episode, Hong Seol is assigned to a group consisting of Sang-cheol, a senior who spends his days drinking and passing his responsibilities onto others; Da-young, a senior who works hard on individual assignments but makes various excuses to avoid group projects; and Min-su, a classmate who knows nothing and needs to be taught everything step by step. As you might guess from the group members, the outcome of the group project was disastrous, and the group ultimately received a D grade. Although the protagonist, Hong Seol, desperately needed a scholarship, she was ultimately excluded from receiving it because of that D grade. This episode sparked outrage among many college students who had experienced group projects firsthand. In ‘Cheese in the Trap’, the behavior of Hong Seol’s group members—who make no contribution to group activities but simply share in the results—is called “free-riding.” Free-riding isn’t limited to group projects; it’s rampant in various organizational settings as well. In this article, we’ll examine how free-riding occurs and how it can be prevented, and we’ll go a step further to explore why we should live with integrity.
Before discussing the causes of free-riding, let’s examine the context of group projects. First, group members undertake group projects in various situations. Consider the example of ‘Cheese in the Trap’ mentioned earlier. The protagonist, Hong Seol, is in a desperate situation where she needs to receive a scholarship. In other words, she must perform well on the group project. In real-life group projects as well, many students work diligently on them to earn high grades. Therefore, when forming a group for a project, one can expect that there will be at least one person in the group who is willing to invest significant effort to earn a high grade. This is where free-riding occurs. Some members will invest significant effort to produce results above a certain standard, and the free-rider, expecting those results to be shared, feels no need to invest much effort themselves. Of course, if expectations are not met, the group project will yield disastrous results; however, generally speaking, these expectations are not disappointed. In other words, for the free-rider, free-riding is a rational decision to minimize costs while securing a predetermined reward.
So, how can we prevent free-riding? The method proposed in this article is the “college student conduct record.” Throughout elementary, middle, and high school, we receive a conduct record at the end of each school year. This record includes not only semester grades but also a comprehensive evaluation from the homeroom teacher. This section falls under affective domain assessment. Generally, evaluation is divided into cognitive and affective domains; cognitive evaluation assesses intellectual abilities such as academic performance, while affective evaluation assesses aspects such as a student’s character. Unlike elementary, middle, and high schools, universities tend to focus solely on cognitive evaluation through grades; the main point of this article is to propose that the affective domain also be evaluated.
Let’s take a closer look at the “College Student Record Book.” First, the evaluators for the affective domain assessment mentioned earlier are the course instructors and the group members with whom the student participated in group activities. Each evaluator assigns a score ranging from 0 to 10 to the student being evaluated and provides a brief comment along with the score. These evaluations are stored in each university’s student evaluation database, and the stored evaluation information can be accessed for courses newly formed in the following semester. While professors may use this information as a basis for forming groups, the method of group formation is left to their discretion. When a student graduates from college, their accumulated evaluation data is made available to authorized users via a website. Here, “authorized users” refer to individuals—such as corporate HR managers—who have a legitimate reason to require evaluative information regarding a student’s affective domain.
In a previous article, I mentioned that “for a free-rider, free-riding is a rational way of thinking that minimizes costs relative to a predetermined reward.” The key term here is “cost.” Because the cost of free-riding is absurdly low, it has become a rational way of thinking for many college students. The purpose of the “College Student Record” is to increase the cost of free-riding. This increased cost takes the form of a negative evaluation in the affective domain resulting from free-riding. The reason why fellow group members serve as the evaluators is that, given the nature of college courses, no other group members possess as much information necessary for evaluating the affective domain as fellow group members do, and because college students possess the maturity required to serve as evaluators.
Some might think that continuing to evaluate the affective domain in college—beyond elementary, middle, and high school—goes against the fundamental purpose of higher education. However, when considering the “society” students will enter after graduation, evaluating students at the university level while excluding the affective domain is, in fact, incongruous. Society is becoming increasingly pluralistic, and within that context, affective domain qualities such as cooperation and creativity are being recognized as increasingly important factors. Although there may be some inherent irrationality, most companies conduct “performance evaluations” to assess these affective domain qualities. Although “evaluation” is perceived negatively by some due to the one-dimensional nature of a competitive society, evaluation must become more diverse and fair to align with a pluralistic society. We must not shun evaluation itself simply because of its one-dimensional aspects.
The reason for proposing the evaluation of affective domains is to raise awareness about improper behavior, such as free-riding, and to provide incentives for living righteously. Therefore, some may raise questions such as, “Why is free-riding a problem?” or “Why should we live righteously?” While there may be individual variations in interpretation, there is a definition of “righteousness” that applies across society as a whole. Companies, too, have their own definition of “righteousness” and conduct performance evaluations based on it. “Righteousness” is linked to “survival.” Societal righteousness is linked to the survival of society. Social norms such as “not harming others” and “helping the vulnerable” are directly tied to society’s survival. Similarly, corporate norms such as “adhering to work hours” and “not engaging in non-work activities during work hours” are directly tied to the survival of the company.
Suppose there is a person who does not live righteously and who is reaping benefits by doing so. The members of the group to which this person belongs will look to this person as an example and likewise choose to live unrighteously. In a corporate setting, this might involve embezzling funds or reaping benefits by being negligent in their duties. If the number of such unrighteous individuals increases, that group will be at a disadvantage in terms of survival. In other words, to ensure survival at the group level, the group must impose sanctions on its members’ unethical behavior and encourage them to act ethically. This, in turn, provides individuals with an incentive to act ethically. This is because if an individual does not act ethically, sanctions imposed by the group to which they belong will reduce their personal gains. Some might think there is no need to act ethically because they can avoid sanctions even if they do not. However, that is a problem with the group’s internal system, and groups lacking such a system will have a low survival rate. Therefore, it is the role of group members to establish a system capable of appropriately sanctioning improper behavior in order to increase the group’s survival rate. However, if such a system cannot be established, there will be no incentive for individuals to act correctly, and consequently, the group will not be able to survive.
Earlier, I cited society and corporations as examples of “rightness.” As such, each group has its own unique definition of “rightness,” and this definition varies depending on the nature of the group and its definition of survival within the group. In other words, “rightness” can be described as a way of life designed to ensure the group’s survival. It is not an absolute standard but rather a single standard that has been established through consensus, bringing together the diverse views of group members regarding survival. Therefore, in a pluralistic society such as ours, standards of righteousness may vary widely, but efforts to find a consensus on righteousness for the sake of the group’s survival are necessary.
In this paper, we identified low costs as the cause of free-riding and proposed a “College Student Life Record,” which allows for evaluative assessments in the moral domain by increasing costs as a solution. Furthermore, while discussing the necessity of evaluating the affective domain, this paper also explored the question of why one should live righteously. Righteousness is an issue related to the survival of the group, and individuals gain an incentive to live righteously within the group’s survival strategy. Here, righteousness is defined by the consensus of the group’s members. In 2016, public interest in the Choi Soon-sil state affairs manipulation scandal was high across society, and the fact that some people reaped significant benefits without living righteously sparked widespread public outrage. Reflecting on such events, isn’t it precisely during times when one might feel skeptical about whether living righteously is truly the right thing to do that we need to engage in deep reflection on “righteousness”?
