In this blog post, I’ll examine the free-rider problem that arises in group projects from the perspective of the repetition and reciprocity hypotheses, and based on this, reflect on altruistic behavior and the meaning of a righteous life.
While there are countless sources of stress for college students, group projects are arguably the most notorious of them all. Although group projects are designed to foster cooperation among students and evaluate that cooperation, in reality, they often end up fueling discord among group members. The primary reason for this is likely the presence of free-riders within the group. Contrary to its general meaning, “free-riding” in this context refers to a person who receives the same grade as others despite contributing significantly less than the rest of the group to a group project. This not only violates the purpose of group projects but also harms other diligent group members. Therefore, free-riding is undoubtedly a problem that must be reduced, not only from the perspective of the instructor assigning the project but also from the perspective of the students working on it. In this paper, I aim to explore how free-riding can be effectively curbed. To this end, I will discuss, in turn, whether free-riding can be completely eliminated and how to identify and sanction group members who engage in it. In this process, the staged assessment system will be proposed as a method for optimizing group activities. Furthermore, I intend to expand the scope of discussion to encompass our lives as a whole, addressing altruistic behavior and righteousness. In particular, I intend to place significant emphasis on the discussion of what “rightness” truly means. I also aim to explore why selfish behaviors, such as free-riding, arise, and why righteous and altruistic behaviors persist despite the prevalence of such selfish acts. Through this, we will ultimately arrive at the question of why we should live a righteous life.
The primary goal of this paper is to find a universal method for preventing free-riding and enabling ideal group projects. Therefore, I will generalize the problem and trace the process by which a group composed of random individuals becomes an ideal group. Let’s assume there is a group consisting of several people chosen at random. Let’s call this state of the group “A.” The people in state A each have different dispositions. Furthermore, people are not one-dimensional but multifaceted beings. In other words, there are diligent people, people who try to free-ride, and even those who, after working hard, suddenly switch to free-riding. Let’s call the ultimate goal that A must reach “B.” B is a state consisting solely of ideal group members. Our task is to select only the ideal team members from among those in A in order to reach B. How can we ensure that only the ideal people remain? The most effective method is for everyone in A to become an ideal team member. This could be achieved by using some method to transform even those who try to free-ride into diligent individuals, or by selecting only the diligent people to form the team. Of course, changing human nature is nearly impossible. That would be ideal, of course. Forming a group consisting solely of diligent people is also difficult, but not impossible. In fact, this approach is already in use. In MBA programs, groups are reshuffled multiple times per semester, and since students often form their own groups during this process, by the end of the semester, groups composed entirely of diligent people may emerge. However, it is difficult to apply this to typical university group projects. While forming groups multiple times, as in an MBA program, can prevent free-riding through repeated interaction and reputation-building, it’s difficult to stop free-riding that occurs under the assumption that “we’ll never see each other again.”
We now know that not everyone can be diligent—in other words, we can’t go directly from A to B. Therefore, it is necessary to weed out suboptimal group members between A and B. Let’s call this process “C.” However, there is no need to specify the method of identification in detail. An anonymous vote could be held near the end of the assignment, or peer evaluations could be conducted and submitted along with the assignment. In particular, having group members evaluate one another and submit evaluation forms is a method actually used at many universities. Since Method C is so widely used, it can be considered somewhat effective; however, there is still room for improvement. The argument I will now present concerns how Method C can be implemented more effectively. The revised and expanded edition of Choi Jeong-gyu’s book ‘The Emergence of the Altruistic Human’ introduces various hypotheses regarding how altruistic behavior came to exist. Among these, the “Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis” posits that society is composed of “reciprocal individuals” who, in repeated interactions, reward others when their behavior is favorable or conforms to social agreements or norms, and retaliate when others violate those agreements or norms. These reciprocal individuals do not act solely to maximize their own interests but respond flexibly based on the behavior of others. This response occurs fundamentally because the situations they face are repeated multiple times. In a one-time interaction, there is no incentive to engage in retaliation—which incurs a cost—regardless of whether the other party violates the norms or not. The more the situation is repeated, the greater the incentive to respond to cooperation with rewards and to non-cooperation with retaliation, thereby securing long-term benefits. Accepting the “Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis” and assuming that all group members in State A function as reciprocal agents, let’s examine the following diagram.
We previously showed that moving directly from State A to State B (1) is impossible, except for a special case (1′). This special case refers to situations where groups are formed multiple times, such as in an MBA program; in such cases, it is possible because repeated interactions allow one to determine, to some extent, whether each individual is likely to be a free rider. (2) is a method commonly used in universities. It involves identifying free-riding group members before the assignment is completed and reflecting this in the grading. However, since this occurs only once during the assignment period—and only after the assignment is effectively over—while free-riding group members receive a fair penalty for their actions, diligent group members are inevitably disadvantaged by the free-riding behavior that occurred during the assignment period. Therefore, (2) can be improved by identifying free-riding group members in advance during the project period to enhance project efficiency. Drawing on this logic and the “Repetition and Reciprocity Hypothesis,” the method I propose is the so-called “period-divided evaluation system,” expressed in Equation (3). The period-divided evaluation system involves repeating the identification process C as many times as possible during the project period. To explain further: When carrying out the task, the schedule is broken down into the smallest possible units, and group members are required to conduct self-evaluations (=C) between each segment. Through this C process, whenever a stage of the task is completed, it will become clear who was the most diligent and who was the least diligent during that stage. Team members identified through Task C will receive appropriate penalties. The time-segmented evaluation system is similar to method (1′), which involves forming teams multiple times. In the process of repeatedly performing Task A—the act of forming a team—team members indirectly identify who is negligent or attempting to free-ride, and they will seek to exclude that person when forming the next team. In (3), which represents the time-segmented evaluation system, group members repeatedly perform task C—the process of directly identifying free-riders—and thereby learn who the habitual free-riders are. These methods are particularly effective because they not only identify unreliable group members but also deter those who intend to free-ride from the outset. Consequently, in scenario (1′), where the formation of groups by A is repeated, and in scenario (3), where the evaluation of group members by C is repeated, free-riding group members gradually begin to act altruistically, ultimately reaching the ideal group state, B.
Thus far, we have explored methods for eliminating free-riding in group projects and encouraging all group members to act altruistically, thereby achieving optimal group performance. Some readers may have reservations about the author’s argument. For example, they might ask: “Why should free-riding be prevented? Sure, it harms other group members, but isn’t it beneficial to the free-rider? If you don’t want to suffer a loss, rather than punishing the free-rider, shouldn’t everyone else just free-ride as well?” This is a very important question that ultimately boils down to “Why should we live a righteous life?”—an issue that must be addressed. To discuss this, I would like to expand the scope of our discussion beyond group projects to encompass our lives as a whole. Therefore, from this point forward, I will address whether there is a reason for us to live a righteous life. Before doing so, we must first examine what “rightness” is and what a “right life” entails. However, standards of what is “right” vary widely from person to person. Everyone has their own beliefs, which they regard as “right,” and they strive to live in accordance with them. Since “rightness” is a term that encompasses a wide variety of attributes and is difficult to define, there are simply too many preliminary discussions that must be addressed before we can speak about “rightness” or a “right life” itself. Therefore, I intend to discuss only a part of what “rightness” entails. As mentioned above, the concept of “rightness” varies entirely depending on the individual, the time, and the place. However, I surmise that there must also be an attribute that allows all these different notions of “rightness” to be united under the single term “rightness.” In other words, within the set of “rightness,” there is a universal and immutable fundamental cause that all its elements share in common. While we cannot say there is only one such universal attribute, I do not believe we can deny that altruism is one of them. Therefore, rather than addressing the entire concept of a righteous life, I would like to discuss the reasons why we should live an altruistic life.
I believe that altruistic behavior is noble in and of itself, but it takes on even greater significance when contrasted with selfish behavior. Furthermore, according to common sense, altruistic acts tend to be more highly recommended than selfish ones. If we use simply “good” and “bad” as our criteria for judgment, it stands to reason that we should refrain from selfish acts and engage in altruistic ones. However, selfish acts have always existed since time immemorial; they exist today, and will likely continue to exist in the future. Why is it inevitable that selfish acts exist? What makes people selfish? Conversely, how is it possible that people still choose to act altruistically despite the widespread prevalence of selfish behavior in society? Discussions on this topic have been ongoing for a long time, and various explanations are currently being proposed, including the view that behavior is based on the actor’s cost-benefit analysis. In fact, while there are a wide variety of theories that go beyond the principle of acting based solely on simple cost-benefit calculations, this article will focus on the “repeated interaction and reciprocity hypothesis,” which was a key argument in the previous discussion on free-riding. The fact that an agent’s cost-benefit analysis determines their behavior—and that both altruistic and selfish individuals exist—means that an action judged to be beneficial can be selfish for one person and altruistic for another. How is this coexistence possible? The “Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis” explains this by distinguishing between short-term and long-term cost-benefit calculations. Selfish individuals pursue only short-term gains and therefore fail to consider that their current selfish actions might result in losses later on. In contrast, altruistic individuals, being reciprocal by nature, are capable of calculating gains and losses from a long-term perspective. Therefore, knowing that their altruistic actions may result in a loss in the short term but ultimately yield a benefit, they do not live solely for their own gain but instead respond flexibly depending on the situation. However, while the Repeated Interaction and Reciprocity Hypothesis is useful for explaining altruistic behavior that arises in repeated interactions, it has the limitation of not being able to account for all instances of altruism that occur in one-time relationships. Therefore, it should be understood not as a single principle that explains altruism in its entirety, but rather as one of the key conditions under which altruistic behavior emerges.
This article covered two main topics. The first was a discussion of group projects and free-riding. As a measure to prevent free-riding, I proposed a system of periodic assessments, the theoretical foundation of which was the “Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis.” The other topic was a discussion on living a righteous life. Beginning with the question of the legitimacy of free-riding behavior, I proceeded with the discussion to resolve doubts regarding the reasons for living a righteous life; in this process, I considered righteousness in connection with altruistic behavior, which is a part of it. After redefining the subjects of discussion as altruistic and selfish behavior, I sought to explain them through the aforementioned “Repeated Reciprocity Hypothesis.” Through this discussion, the initial question—“Why should we live a righteous life?”—was, after thorough deliberation, reframed as “Why should we engage in altruistic behavior?” Based on the assumption that we are social beings, the answer to this question is that altruistic behavior can be effective from the perspective of long-term benefits. However, can we truly say that our actual lives consist of repetitions of the same situations, as suggested by the “Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis”? The answer to this question can likely be considered from an existentialist perspective, which views life as a series of choices. In Sartre’s existentialism, humans are understood as beings who shape themselves through their own choices. While life’s choices manifest differently in every moment and are not always identical, it is difficult to deny that life is a series of choices. Amid these repeated choices, every human possesses the potential to function as a “reciprocal being.” Amid the people with whom we repeatedly exchange influences throughout our lives, we naturally respond reciprocally to the actions of others. Furthermore, as our choices accumulate, we come to realize that, from a long-term perspective, the best course of action is to respond to kindness with kindness and to irrationality with retaliation. The most ideal situation, of course, is one in which everyone acts altruistically—extending kindness and reciprocating it. This is because when everyone is altruistic, the happiness and well-being of society as a whole are likely to increase.
