In this blog post, we’ll examine why people strive to behave properly and how we can foster altruistic behavior and cooperation through rewards and penalties—the “carrots” and “sticks”—using the free-rider problem in college group projects as a case study.
Humans are far more moral than we tend to think. Every morning, when we take public transportation, we don’t ride for free; when someone asks for directions, we answer to the best of our ability; and when waiting for a shuttle bus, we stand in line like everyone else without cutting in front of others. In this way, we unconsciously feel that we should act correctly in our daily lives. However, we do not always act correctly. There have surely been times when we littered on the street, and other times when we did not give up our seat to an elderly person standing in front of us. Yet, we still strive to act correctly as much as possible. What, then, is the reason we behave this way? Also, is there a reason why everyone should act correctly? To answer this question, let’s first define “correct behavior” and then explore the answer through the phenomenon of “free-riding,” which is frequently observed in college settings.
First, the “correct behavior” we will discuss here refers to correct behavior in the positive sense—that is, actions that ultimately result in a loss for me but a benefit for others, or altruistic behavior. In the case of group projects at university, contributing to the group by investing my time and resources would be an altruistic act. This is because even group members who make no effort can benefit from my contribution—for example, by earning academic credit. So, first, what steps should we take to prevent free-riding when working on group projects?
The method I propose is the “carrot-and-stick” approach. First, divide the group project into a series of smaller tasks rather than treating it as a single large project. For example, if the project involves writing a research paper, it can easily be broken down into topics such as topic discussion, background theory research, and discussion of research methods, and students should be assigned to complete smaller tasks multiple times. Additionally, ensure that students do not know exactly when each small task will be due. Before the group project begins in earnest, have group members openly discuss what penalties will be imposed on free-riders. Afterward, set aside time for them to publicly present the results of their discussion in front of the rest of the class. When carrying out the group project, assign grades on a sliding scale based on performance to foster a competitive atmosphere among groups. Furthermore, encourage the use of social networking services (SNS) to facilitate frequent communication among group members, and create opportunities for them to meet regularly even outside of group project work. After each sub-task is completed, impose sanctions on free-riders in accordance with the agreed-upon rules, and provide opportunities to adjust the severity of those sanctions.
The advantages of this approach are as follows. First, dividing group assignments into smaller tasks and not disclosing when the group project will end is intended to encourage cooperation from the perspective of reciprocal reciprocity. Reducing the project’s scope to smaller task units increases the number of interactions among group members through the tasks, thereby raising the likelihood of altruistic behavior. Furthermore, while the total number of tasks increases, the difficulty of each individual task decreases; this helps prevent students from giving up midway due to the difficulty of the tasks and becoming free-riders. Allowing students to autonomously decide on sanctions for free-riders draws on the principles of the public goods game. Numerous experimental studies have confirmed that punishing individuals who act selfishly within a group can help maintain or increase cooperation, thereby strengthening group cohesion. Creating a competitive atmosphere with other groups is also intended to enhance group cohesion. Furthermore, increasing the frequency of communication and ensuring members encounter each other often applies the principle that cooperation is fostered through communication; this is expected to increase mutual trust and a sense of obligation. In this way, I aim to prevent free-riding by using a “carrot-and-stick” approach that harmoniously combines incentives that evoke positive emotions—such as trust, a sense of obligation, and group consciousness—with incentives that evoke negative emotions, such as the fear of punishment and retaliation.
I believe the reason humans should live righteously is the same as described above. We act righteously not only out of positive motivations—such as our conscience or consideration for others—but also out of negative motivations, such as the fear of legal punishment or criticism from others. In other words, we must live righteously both to gain fulfillment and to avoid punishment. Beyond these personal reasons, there are also social reasons for living righteously. Various hypotheses—such as the “birds of a feather flock together” theory, the group selection hypothesis, and the spatial structure effect—show that my altruistic behavior can positively influence the altruistic behavior of others. If I live a righteous life, others are more likely to do the same. Therefore, I believe that it is necessary for people to live righteously not only for moral reasons but also for their own personal benefit and for the good of society.
