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, by extending this discussion, reflect on why we should live righteously.
‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ uses game theory to set up various scenarios and explains the conditions under which altruistic behavior in humans emerges. In this post, drawing on the seven hypotheses introduced in the book and the content in its latter sections, I will explore the optimal methods for preventing free-riding and, based on this, consider whether there is a reason we should live righteously. Free-riding is one of the most common problems encountered in group activities. Since group projects are often graded on a group basis, group members who work hard may end up receiving the same grade as those who free-ride. Furthermore, if some group members free-ride, the overall quality of the final product may decline, causing significant harm to the members who worked diligently. To prevent such situations, we can devise solutions based on several hypotheses. First, if we apply game theory to group projects, we can think of the rewards earned as grades. Furthermore, if we limit group projects to a single semester, the number of rounds in this scenario is relatively small.
To achieve the best possible group project outcomes, we can utilize the communication hypothesis and institutional mechanisms. In fact, in real-world situations, there are cases where maximizing rewards—that is, obtaining a high grade—is not necessarily essential. However, since such situations contradict the premises set forth in books on evolutionary biology, we will exclude them here. In other words, we assume that all group members want high grades.
To begin with, the communication hypothesis states that in a game theory scenario, as people communicate with one another, each individual’s altruism increases with each repeated round. Based on this communication hypothesis, the first strategy involves group members continuously checking each other’s participation rates and progress on assigned tasks during group activities. By consistently reminding members who attempt to free-ride that their participation and progress are lacking, we can instill a sense of responsibility.
The second approach involves group members gathering after group activities to discuss the previous session. By discussing the results of the group activity and participation rates, they can point out what went well and what could have been better, and suggest areas where the group fell short, as well as future improvements and ways to implement them. Through these face-to-face group meetings, members can reaffirm their sense of responsibility for the tasks assigned to them during group activities. This will help ensure that group activities are conducted in a more structured manner overall, thereby improving the quality of the results.
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 might include peer evaluation methods and group activity participation logs. First, criteria are needed to identify free-riders through these mechanisms. Once these criteria are established, members who fall short of them can be penalized, while those who contribute significantly to group activities can be rewarded with bonus points, thereby encouraging 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. Additionally, the group activity participation log is completed by the entire group, documenting which roles were assigned to each member and when and how those roles were carried out. Since the entire group—rather than individual members—completes a single log, entries can be recorded in a relatively consistent manner. Free-riders will have very few activity entries, making them easy to identify. Furthermore, bonus points could be awarded to members who actively participated in group activities by taking on the roles that free-riders failed to fulfill adequately, thereby encouraging participation.
The reason this is the best method can be understood by considering the communication hypothesis presented in the book. In fact, most of the seven hypotheses presented in the book do not fit well with the context of group activities. That is, 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 situations.
However, in the case of the communication hypothesis, we can compare the conditions of the actual experiments to those of group activities. The very situation 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 group activities, and the “return on investment” is the benefit gained. As shown in the experiments, the more frequently communication occurs, the higher the participation rate becomes; thus, this supports the argument that frequent communication can raise the overall activity level of the group. Furthermore, the mandatory participation approach serves as a mechanism to encourage participation. Unlike the conventional method, which assigns the same score to all group members based on the group’s overall output, this approach assigns scores according to each individual’s level of effort. The very reason people free-ride is the benefit of receiving a higher score than their effort warrants; this approach eliminates that incentive and creates a reason for members to participate actively.
Let us now broaden the scope and consider whether there is a reason to live righteously. The group activity scenario is relevant here, and in this context, “right behavior” can be defined as “participating diligently in group activities.” Suppose the approach described above is incorporated into the grading system. In that case, we naturally have a reason to behave correctly, because failing to do so would result in a loss. But what if such a system has not yet been implemented? Is there still a reason to act correctly even in cases where we don’t suffer a loss—and may even gain an advantage—by not doing so?
We generally believe that to maximize our benefits, we need to live correctly. If so, we must first consider what it means to live correctly. Living correctly means acting to maximize the benefits of the group to which we belong—including altruistic choices—and refraining from actions that harm others for our own gain. The reason we should live righteously is simple: from a long-term perspective, the more righteously we live, the greater our ultimate benefits will be compared to if we had not lived righteously.
Consider the simplest scenario: when everyone within a group lives righteously, the benefits they receive are maximized, so there is a reason to live righteously. However, if there are people within a group who do not live righteously, those who do will suffer losses and lose their reason to continue living righteously. To prevent such situations, institutional mechanisms are in place in real life. Measures can be taken to ensure that the total benefits gained from living unrighteously are less than the losses incurred through these institutions, or to exclude such individuals from the group.
In practice, we use the institutional mechanism of “law” to define “right living” to a certain extent; when this is violated, fines or criminal penalties are imposed to ensure that those who commit illegal acts suffer corresponding disadvantages.
Through such “laws,” the system in the world we live in is designed so that the benefits gained from living wrongly are smaller than the disadvantages incurred as a result of such behavior. For example, if you are caught parking in a no-parking zone—rather than in a designated area or a paid parking lot—you may face penalties such as administrative fines or traffic fines. If the cost incurred in this situation exceeds the cost of choosing a legal parking method, the benefit gained from acting improperly is ultimately transformed into a loss due to these institutional mechanisms.
There is another reason why we should live rightly. 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 a person violates these norms within a group, other members of the group will be less likely to cooperate with that person in other situations. In other words, once a person fails to act correctly, the benefits they receive will inevitably be minimized, and in severe cases, they may even be 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 suffers a loss even while acting properly—it is difficult to explain the reason for acting properly based solely on the assumption that one “acts to maximize gain.” Nevertheless, instances of acting properly occur frequently in our lives. Furthermore, there must clearly be reasons for 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, we may suffer psychological distress due to the pangs of conscience. For example, if a hit-and-run occurs in a situation where no one is present, the perpetrator may feel intense remorse. 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. Examples of actions that are right but result in a loss include organ donation or charitable giving; the happiness, sense of accomplishment, or pride derived from such righteous acts can also serve as reasons for a person to act correctly even if they suffer a loss. In other words, the prospect of personal gain does not necessarily compel us to act in a certain way. People do not act solely by pursuing gain after precisely calculating benefits and losses in every situation; rather, even in situations where they stand to gain, they may feel pangs of conscience, and even in situations where they suffer a loss, they may experience happiness or a sense of accomplishment—and these can serve as reasons for acting correctly.
In summary, to prevent situations in group activities where a hardworking member suffers a loss while a free-rider gains an advantage, we can introduce communication methods and peer evaluation systems that encourage all group members to engage in “right behavior.” These methods can be viewed as analogous to “laws and institutions” in our daily lives. In other words, these strategies to prevent free-riding are similar to the principles of laws and institutions. Taking this a step further, the reason we should live righteously is that, ultimately, we stand to benefit from laws and institutions. Even when these laws and institutions fail to function properly, we still possess 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 assumption that people act to maximize their own gain and better accounts for our actual lives.
