This blog post explores strategies to prevent free riding and enhance trust and cooperation in university group projects.
For freshmen entering university, group projects represent the romanticized ideal of college life. The process of collaborating with diverse people in this new environment, building knowledge, and exchanging ideas fills them with great anticipation. However, reality is often less romantic. That idealistic vision frequently becomes distorted as group work progresses. Conflicts arise, and frustration mounts when other members fail to deliver deliverables on time or show up late to meetings. Above all, when planned schedules keep getting delayed, or someone’s negligence renders others’ efforts futile, these group activities become a source of stress rather than the anticipated joy. This is still mild compared to someone suddenly going offline. It’s equally uncomfortable when I’m late or fail to properly handle my assigned tasks. As these incidents pile up, it becomes harder to broach the subject, and mistrust among group members only grows. This distrust doesn’t stop at group assignments; it can negatively impact relationships and motivation throughout college life.
It’s no wonder students sometimes call poorly run group activities a “cancerous growth.” Such negative nicknames go beyond mere student frustration; they vividly illustrate the consequences when group work fails. Tension among students is one of the primary causes of conflict in group activities, which in turn increases the likelihood of free riders emerging.
This article explores how to facilitate smoother group activities, which often become a headache. Specifically, it applies concepts from game theory to discuss methods for preventing free riding by group members. The root cause of free-riding in group activities lies primarily in the lack of effective means to penalize free-riders. Free-riders face no personal loss. If a free-rider fails to contribute their share, resulting in subpar outcomes, it is ultimately the other group members who suffer greater losses. Consequently, the work the free-rider neglected is often covered by others. Even if the final product is submitted incomplete, the free rider who contributed nothing still breaks even. If means to penalize free riders were established, we could expect the number of free riders to decrease to some extent. In this situation, the free rider could be seen as a selfish individual, while the team member who diligently participates in group activities could be viewed as an altruistic individual.
This phenomenon is common across human society, observable in various environments. We will extend this concept to consider whether there is a reason to live rightly. It would also be meaningful to examine how humans, as social animals, have solved such problems and built cooperation and trust.
The first method to prevent free-riding in group activities is to form groups primarily with members from the same major. The situation in group activities is very similar to the scenario described in the ‘Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis’ where repetition is not a given. Typically, group members are often composed of individuals from different majors to encourage encounters with diverse people. The problem here is that because their undergraduate departments differ, they rarely have reason to interact after the group activity ends. Consequently, even if someone free-rides this time, it’s difficult to impose practical disadvantages, such as not including that person in future groups or refusing to help with assignments. Because there is no ‘next time’ to begin with. This scenario, where interaction is not repeated, results in altruistic individuals suffering losses while selfish individuals reap benefits.
To empower the altruistic individuals—those who sincerely participate in group activities—in such situations, repeated interaction must be the premise. If group members share the same major and must continue encountering each other throughout college, the options available to other members to respond when someone free-rides are far more diverse than in other cases. They could directly retaliate, such as being reluctant to include that person in future group activities, or they could spread word among peers in the same major about the free-riding, damaging that person’s reputation. In fact, I’ve never heard of anyone freeloading in a group project for a major course.
Once, in a major course, I listened to a friend complain about being assigned to the same group as someone notorious for freeloading on group assignments in a general education course. Contrary to everyone’s concerns, that friend, who had a reputation as a free rider, reportedly participated diligently in the group activity, even stepping up as the presenter for the final presentation in the major course. The potential burden of retaliation for free-riding in a major course likely influenced participation rates.
In this way, group activities within a major can naturally encourage high participation rates and a sense of responsibility. Furthermore, through this process, students learn the importance of cooperation and accountability, which will be valuable assets not only in their studies but also in their social lives. By grouping people who are close to each other and have the means to impose sanctions on one another for group activities, the expected value of the benefits gained from free-riding can be lowered, thereby discouraging free-riding.
Another approach is to encourage communication among group members. In liberal arts lectures where group work is assigned, it’s common for members to briefly introduce themselves before diving straight into the task. Starting work without knowing each other well makes it difficult to communicate promptly when plans go awry. The most frustrating situation in group work is when a member fails to do their assigned work properly and doesn’t communicate at all. Even if someone hasn’t done their work well or hasn’t finished it, simply explaining their situation and continuing to check in with each other significantly reduces the discomfort that arises from bottling up frustration. If team members maintain regular contact and keep the lines of communication open, the trust built through this process will reduce internal conflicts within the group and increase participation rates in group activities.
This aligns with the ‘Communication Theory’ explaining the emergence of altruism. For instance, in this Science and Technology Writing lecture, the professor created a KakaoTalk chat room for both students and themselves, encouraging dialogue between professor and students, and among students themselves. Creating an atmosphere where group members can comfortably share their thoughts through conversation before tackling assignments positively impacts group activity participation.
This isn’t merely about encouraging verbal communication. As the saying goes, “You have to rub shoulders to become friends,” nonverbal communication also influences team members’ willingness to participate. In the ‘Understanding Our Bodies’ course taken in the first semester, the professor had the entire team climb Gwanaksan Mountain together, measure their heart rates every 10 minutes, and write a report.
On the day of the hike, people who had only met twice before shared the challenging trail, sweating together, and surprisingly grew remarkably close. When writing the report afterward, every single member participated without exception, dividing the tasks among themselves. As in these examples, if opportunities are provided at the course level for group members to communicate, get to know each other, and become somewhat familiar before formally starting assignments, free riders will decrease.
The trust formed through such interactions extends beyond the task itself, continuing to influence their university life. University is not merely a place to accumulate knowledge but also a space for growth through interaction with diverse people. Through these experiences, students will realize the value of cooperation and develop the qualities needed to become mature members of society.
So, let’s move on to a bigger question: Is there a reason to live rightly? As mentioned earlier, free-riding occurs because free-riders suffer no direct loss for not participating in group activities, and retaliation against them is difficult after the activity concludes. Moreover, most people we encounter on the street are unlikely to be seen again. Should we treat them morally correctly? Is it really a big problem to litter on the street or occasionally pick a fight with passersby?
With the development of the internet, the proliferation of smartphones, and the emergence of SNS, the world has become increasingly smaller. Through the internet, my personal information is exposed to everyone, and getting to know people and staying in touch has become easier. As we come to know more people, society has become one where there are no longer ‘people you only see once’. To draw on the earlier concept, in modern society, interactions without repetition have become hard to find. In reality, everything from the outbursts of a rude lawmaker to the disruptive behavior of a young woman on the subway spreads instantly through social media, personal details are exposed, and immense social retribution often follows. In such a society, living rightly has become less a matter of personal will and more, quite literally, a social obligation.
One can also consider this from a personal perspective. Living rightly ultimately means communicating with others and coexisting harmoniously. Humans are often called social animals. We live as members of society, from the smallest unit of the family to the largest, like cities and nations. Violating established social norms and failing to live rightly can be understood as refusing to be a member of society. Ultimately, living rightly is simply what one ought to do by virtue of existing within this society.
When group activities conclude successfully, it feels truly rewarding. Seeing everyone coordinate differing opinions and collectively build a tower step by step—a tower impossible to construct alone—brings a sense of relief and gratitude, regardless of whether the final evaluation is favorable or not. In teamwork and group activities, which occupy a significant portion of university life, free riders are literally like cancerous tumors that only cause me pain, yet I cannot simply cut them out at will. In this article, I considered methods to prevent the emergence of free riders by citing the ‘Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis’ and the ‘Communication Hypothesis’. Using the ‘Repetition-Reciprocity Hypothesis,’ placing people from the same major in the same group leaves room for retaliation against free riders. Drawing from the ‘Communication Hypothesis,’ which suggests that interaction between individuals fosters altruism, the article proposed that presenting ways for group members to become friends during the lecture would increase participation. Furthermore, within the broader society, I contemplated whether there is indeed a reason we should live morally correctly, within a similar context.
Ultimately, preventing free-riding and achieving success in group activities is not merely about succeeding in a task; it is a crucial element that makes the entire college experience meaningful. Through this, students learn social responsibility, form mature relationships, and ultimately contribute to building a better society.
