In this blog post, we’ll examine the free-rider problem that arises in group projects from the perspectives of game theory and altruistic behavior, and explore together how to prevent free-riding and why we should live righteously.
Group projects—a term that strikes fear into the hearts of many college students. The common observation about an ant colony—where one-third play, one-third do useless work, and only the final one-third work efficiently—seems strangely similar to the reality of group projects. While some participate diligently, others loaf around and free-ride, yet everyone receives the same outcome. Viewed in isolation, the free-riding that occurs in group projects appears, quite literally, to be similar to riding a bus without paying the fare. Regrettably, this unscrupulous behavior is not limited to group projects; it manifests in slightly different forms throughout society, yet retains the same essence. Ultimately, free-riding can be defined as “the act of not putting in effort—since the benefit I receive from my own effort is small—while reaping the rewards of others’ efforts by sitting back and doing nothing, even though everyone’s individual efforts ultimately benefit the group as a whole.” It is clear that no one—not even the free-riders themselves—wants to be a victim of this behavior, and everyone hopes that free-riding will disappear. Therefore, I intend to explore how free-riding can be prevented. Going one step further, refraining from free-riding is a form of righteous behavior. Do we truly have a reason to live righteously? Perhaps we can find that reason in the very process of seeking ways to prevent free-riding.
From an evolutionary biological perspective, The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ (Choi Jeong-gyu, 2004)—which explains the emergence of altruistic humans, that is, people’s altruistic behavior—illustrates various forms of free-riding through game theory. In particular, one of the key games discussed in this book is the Prisoner’s Dilemma, and free-riding can be said to have a structure similar to that of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. Simply put, if there are two participants in the game, the best outcome from one person’s perspective is for them to do nothing while the other works hard, allowing them to share a decent outcome; the second-best is for both to work hard and share a very good outcome; the second-worst is for neither to work hard, resulting in both suffering a disadvantage; and the worst is for the other to do nothing while they alone work hard. In this scenario, regardless of what the other person does—whether they work diligently or brazenly try to free-ride—the strategy that benefits me the most—that is, the one that maximizes the ratio of outcome to effort—is to try to free-ride. It’s better for me to free-ride than to work hard when the other person is working hard. Rather than struggling alone while the other person tries to free-ride, it’s better for me to just abandon the group activity altogether. Ultimately, from a game theory perspective, when both participants make the choice that is optimal for themselves—that is, free-riding—the result is that both end up with the second-worst outcome for themselves. The paradoxical nature of this situation—where, despite the possibility of achieving a second-best outcome if both had worked together, they instead choose the option that is optimal for themselves and end up with the second-worst outcome—is the essence of the Prisoner’s Dilemma.
That is the theory. But what about in reality? Do group projects always end in utter disaster because every group member freeloads? No, they do not. As mentioned in the introduction, the reason group projects have such a bad reputation is that while some members work hard, others freeload. Similarly, when the Prisoner’s Dilemma is actually tested in experiments, the results do not always align with the theory. Let’s look at the Tragedy of the Commons game, which can be viewed as an extension of the Prisoner’s Dilemma. The Tragedy of the Commons game involves two or more participants. Each individual can decide how much of the commons’ resources to use; the more resources they use, the greater their personal benefit, but the total benefit for all participants decreases. The total benefit for all participants is greatest when everyone uses the minimum amount of resources and smallest when everyone uses the maximum amount. According to theory, in this game, everyone should use the common-pool resources to the maximum to maximize their own benefit, ultimately leading to the tragedy of the commons. However, actual experiments have shown that people do not necessarily use resources to the maximum; instead, they sometimes exercise restraint in resource use by sacrificing some of their own benefit. In other words, in the common-pool resource game, people sacrificed some of their own benefit for the benefit of others. Similar behavior is observed in real-world group projects. Of course, some people do act as free riders. Considering these facts, we can see that the world is not filled solely with unscrupulous individuals who think only of their own interests. People’s altruistic behavior—that is, sacrificing their own interests to some extent for the benefit of others—demonstrates the potential to overturn the bleak predictions of game theory. To widely realize this potential—that is, to free ourselves from the drudgery of group projects—we must identify the motivations that drive people to act altruistically. If we can identify those motivations—and instill them in those who might otherwise try to free-ride—we could transform many potential free-riders into diligent group members.
While other group members are slacking off, why do some people participate diligently in group activities? Perhaps they are so talented that they can handle the group work on their own; perhaps the outcome of the group work is too important to them—since the final product is generally directly linked to their grades; or perhaps they simply enjoy the activity itself and participate enthusiastically and voluntarily, regardless of what others do. In reality, group projects are often led by such individuals. This is because, in groups of five or more, there is usually at least one person like this. However, since we’re currently looking for ways to keep group projects running smoothly, let’s set this scenario aside for now. Let’s assume that group projects are equally tedious and require considerable effort for everyone, and that no one is particularly desperate for the outcome—that is, their grade. In other words, we’re presented with a situation similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma game we discussed earlier, and everyone is fully aware of the game’s theoretical outcome. In this situation, how can we avoid a mutually destructive outcome where everyone fails?
The answer is “expectation.” Everyone knows that freeloading while goofing off is better than working hard, but since they also know that everyone else is thinking the same thing, they try to avoid the second-worst outcome. Since the worst-case scenario is working hard all by myself, they make an effort to move toward the next-best option. As a result, most people develop a mindset along the lines of: “It might be better for me to just sit back and do nothing on my own, but if we all free-ride, we’ll all fail together—so it’s better if we all work hard together. But I don’t want to be the only one working hard; if someone else works hard too, then I’ll work hard as well.” Group activities that began as a “prisoner’s dilemma” turn into a situation where, as the saying goes, people are “testing the waters.” They test the waters; if the situation looks good, they participate, and if not, they drop out. At this point, the person with the most proactive personality in the group usually steps up, and that’s how the group activity avoids a mutually destructive outcome and begins to move forward. At that point, someone sees others participating and decides it’s okay for them to slack off, ultimately resulting in a typical group activity where free-riders and hard workers coexist. In other words, the situation ends up somewhere between the “lesser of two evils” (where everyone slacks off) and the “better of two options” (where everyone participates).
We must create a framework that allows this motivation to flourish. In other words, we must nudge the ball—which is positioned between the “lesser of two evils” and the “better alternative”—toward the “better alternative.” While there are various approaches we can consider, the most effective one is to foster strong motivation while simultaneously imposing penalties on those who drop out. First, when all group members are “testing the waters” as described earlier, it is by no means easy for one person to step forward alone and lead the others. In such cases, it’s essential that each member’s role in the group activity be as clearly defined as possible. When one’s role is clearly assigned, it becomes very uncomfortable to back out and be a free rider. Furthermore, when roles are clearly allocated, one can expect others to fulfill their roles properly. The most ideal situation is when roles are divided from the very beginning of the group activity—that is, when the assignment starts—and group members each choose and take on one role. However, since we cannot expect such a smooth division of roles in every class, group members must engage in dialogue to achieve a reasonable and fair distribution of responsibilities. Of course, no matter how well the roles are divided, the amount of effort each member puts in will vary. It is highly likely that while some will stay up all night pouring their heart and soul into the work, others will half-heartedly complete only the necessary parts. To prevent such unfairness, many alternatives involving mutual evaluation after group activities have been proposed, and they have indeed been implemented in numerous courses. However, in a situation where we must devise ways to prevent free-riding, it is absurd to rely solely on each individual’s conscience and judgment for evaluation. When implementing a peer evaluation system, it is difficult to be certain that those who actually contribute the most will receive higher scores; on the contrary, an absurd situation could arise where someone who merely went through the motions receives the highest score due to personal connections. Because of this risk, the peer evaluation system was ruled out. Thus, while the division of roles is imperfect, it can still prevent a significant number of free-riders. We have moved a little closer from the “lesser of two evils” to the “better of two options.”
No matter how well roles are assigned, there may still be shameless individuals who free-ride until the very end. Therefore, we’ll introduce a system where, if a team member fails to properly fulfill their assigned role—that is, if they attempt to free-ride—they can be expelled if a majority vote in favor of their expulsion within a set period. Expelled team members will face significant penalties in their scores. The division of roles raises expectations that others will also perform their duties well, while the expulsion system prevents free-riding. Furthermore, we institutionalize the practice of continuously sharing progress updates as roles are assigned. This allows members to monitor one another, preventing dropouts who might try to cut corners and leave early. At the same time, seeing that others are fulfilling their roles effectively motivates individuals to work harder themselves, gradually bringing the group closer to the next-best outcome. Here, the second-best outcome—achieved through everyone’s collective effort—is a kind of “ideal.” We cannot reach this ideal. However, we can take one step at a time toward it.
But can we really say this is the best method? Since we have simplified the actual group activity situation through a few assumptions here, there are almost no other viable alternatives to consider besides using role assignment to provide strong motivation and punishing—that is, expelling—free-riders, while excluding a peer evaluation system. Therefore, one might question whether this method is truly superior. However, since we analyzed the most general situation by excluding all special cases through assumptions and simplifications, the method derived here possesses universality that can be applied in any situation. If a method to prevent free-riding in group activities does not apply in certain situations, it cannot be considered the best method. It can only be the best method if it proves effective everywhere. It is precisely this universality that makes it the best method.
We have found a way to prevent free-riding, but is there really a reason why we should not free-ride? Or is there a reason to forgo one’s own benefit on the commons and exercise restraint in the use of resources for the sake of others? More broadly speaking, is there a reason to live righteously—that is, to think of and care for others? The term “righteous” as used in this article is, to some extent, synonymous with altruism. Some find the reason in an individual’s character, morality, ethics, or values. Others find it in laws that punish those who act wrongly. Still others find it in the benefits gained by presenting oneself in a favorable light. All of these have their own grounds and can indeed explain reality. However, they are all reasons that apply only partially. An individual’s character and values are shaped by their environment, experiences, and nature. Therefore, we cannot expect everyone to live righteously for purely moral reasons. The law compels people to live righteously to a certain extent by punishing those who do not. However, punishing those who deviate does not provide an intuitive, fundamental reason for why one must live righteously. The same applies to the explanation that one acts to maintain one’s image. Not everyone fits this description. So what could serve as a “reason to live rightly” that applies to everyone? What if acting altruistically ultimately benefits oneself as well? This would be the most secular and realistic—and, in a sense, selfish—reason, but precisely because of that, it could become a universal reason acceptable to all.
How can altruistic behavior benefit me as well? The key lies with others. More precisely, it lies in the influence my actions have on determining the behavior of others. Just as in a group activity scenario based on the Prisoner’s Dilemma, my altruistic behavior—which seeks to benefit others—can induce altruistic behavior in them. Their altruistic behavior, in turn, becomes my benefit. I could act selfishly and gain a greater immediate benefit, but doing so would discourage others who were considering altruistic behavior. Ultimately, others would act selfishly, and I would be unable to benefit from their altruistic actions. I end up comparing the benefit I gain from my own selfish behavior, the benefit I gain when I act selfishly, and the benefit I gain from others’ altruistic behavior when I act altruistically—but in the Prisoner’s Dilemma game, the benefit gained from others’ altruistic behavior is always greater. Have I now found a reason to live righteously?
In fact, there is a major flaw in this logic. Will the other party truly reciprocate with altruistic behavior just because I acted altruistically? Consider the Tragedy of the Commons game, where resource usage is categorized into two levels: “high” and “moderate.” If I act altruistically by using resources moderately but not enough people cooperate, I will ultimately suffer a loss. Conversely, if I act selfishly and use resources heavily, I will ultimately benefit unless enough people change their minds and switch from altruistic to selfish behavior. In conclusion, while altruistic behavior may be beneficial, there is also a possibility that it will result in a loss. The reason for altruistic behavior mentioned earlier—that is, “I should act altruistically because it benefits me as well”—does not hold up. Is there still a reason to act altruistically?
Unfortunately, there cannot be a universal and absolute reason why everyone must live righteously. The fact that the real world is evenly mixed with people who act righteously and those who do not serves as proof of this. If there were a clear, universal, and absolute reason to live righteously, the world would consist solely of people who live righteously. However, this is not the case in reality, and therefore no such absolute reason exists. Yet, although imperfect, there is a powerful reason to live righteously: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is the Law and the Prophets.” This passage is the Golden Rule found in Matthew 7:12. The Golden Rule is one of the central teachings of Christian ethics, and similar teachings can be found in religions and ethical systems around the world. Everyone in the world—whether selfish or altruistic—wishes for others to act altruistically for their own benefit. If one wishes others to act altruistically, one must ultimately treat others with altruism as well. Although this may sometimes result in personal loss, and although some who receive altruistic treatment may betray their duty and treat others selfishly, as more and more people accept and practice the teachings of the Golden Rule, the world will move in a better direction—toward an “ideal.”
The free-rider problem can be addressed by clearly assigning roles to create incentives for active participation and by penalizing those who opt out. Couldn’t the issue of altruistic behavior be improved in a similar way? However, this is not easy. While group activities involve interactions among a few members, life in society involves interactions among countless members. In a vast society, it is difficult to create incentives for altruistic behavior using relatively simple methods, as is done in group activities. In society, punishment is possible only when the law is broken, but since not all altruistic actions are illegal, it is difficult to apply this principle in the same way. Unfortunately, it seems difficult to increase altruistic behavior in society solely by preventing free-riding. However, there is still a point worth considering. When trying to prevent free-riding, we fundamentally assume that “I will not be a free-rider.” Here, too, the Golden Rule applies. If I want to prevent others from unfairly free-riding, or if I hope others will actively participate in group activities, then I must naturally work hard myself. Whether it’s altruistic behavior for others or any wave of change I deeply desire, I must take the lead myself to inspire others to follow.
