In this blog post, we explore the causes and solutions to the recurring free-riding problem in group projects through various hypotheses.
A scientific experiment using ants revealed the 80/20 rule. This states that in ant colonies, 20% of the ants do 80% of the work, while the remaining 80% of ants do only 20% of the work. Even more intriguing is that if you gather only the top 20% of hardworking ants, only 20% of that group will actually work diligently. Even in ant society, the epitome of diligence, free riders exist.
Just like ants, human society also has diverse people. Extroverts and introverts, selfish people and altruistic people coexist. The Science and Technology Writing course at Seoul National University also involves writing papers and conducting research through collaboration with diverse individuals. One problem frequently encountered in group activities at universities is the free rider problem. While it’s ideal for everyone to work hard to achieve the best results, free riders are those who try to piggyback on others’ efforts without contributing anything themselves. This article explores how to solve the free rider problem in group activities and extends this to discuss why we should live rightly in our general lives. All this discussion will be based on various hypotheses explaining human altruism.
First, we can consider preventing free-riding through the Reciprocity Hypothesis. This hypothesis can be summarized as ‘an eye for an eye’. It posits that the possibility of retaliation exists between people. Initially, everyone adopts a cooperative attitude, but if the other party acts selfishly, they retaliate with an equally uncooperative attitude. This hypothesis has two limitations. First, when individuals recognize that the relationship is not sustained. Second, when multiple people participate in a single task and it is impossible to identify who free-rode. If they know the relationship is not sustained, they will increasingly pursue their own interests over time, knowing the other party has few opportunities for retaliation. Furthermore, when it’s unclear who free-rode, individuals might sabotage the collective effort to retaliate against unknown free-riders. Retaliation reduces the public good, ultimately diminishing their own interests.
Let’s apply this hypothesis to a real-world scenario. Initially, everyone adopts a cooperative attitude. However, if someone attempts to free-ride from the start, they will face consistent retaliation. Retaliation in group activities could take the form of receiving a low evaluation in the end-of-semester group member assessment or facing continued pressure from group members. Since it is impossible not to know who free-rode in group activities, retaliation can be directed at a specific individual. Even knowing they may never see each other again after the semester ends, the group member assessment occurring at the semester’s end maintains tension until the very end. Therefore, implementing a method to ensure clear retaliation against free riders could be the first solution. To achieve this, the weighting of the group evaluation in the final grade must be significantly increased beforehand. However, for those who don’t consider a low grade a major issue, this retaliation might not be a significant problem. To address the free-riding issue among such individuals, the following method is proposed.
The second approach can be derived from the communication hypothesis. To illustrate this hypothesis, consider an experiment. It’s an experiment that turns the tragedy of the commons into a game, where people take as much of the public resource as they want. If you take a large amount of the resource, the amount you can receive depends on how much others choose to take. If others take little, taking a large amount yields maximum benefit. However, if everyone takes a large amount, one’s share decreases. If taking little, everyone taking little yields not maximum benefit but a satisfactory gain. After playing this game about 10 times, participants discussed their behavior. The result was surprising. Those who discussed reduced the amount of resources they took by more than half. No penalty or retaliation system was introduced; simply discussing led everyone to act in the right direction. The effect became more pronounced with each round of discussion. This experiment demonstrates how crucial discussion and communication are among people.
Let’s apply this to a real-world situation. Team members frequently communicate and discuss paper writing and research. This isn’t about retaliating against someone; it’s about discussing ideal behaviors to achieve good outcomes for everyone. Considering that people made the right choices even when their selections were kept secret in the experiment, group activities where free riders can be identified would likely yield even greater effects. In other words, another method for solving the free rider problem is frequent discussion and deliberation.
So far, we’ve considered solving the free-rider problem within a narrow scope. Extending this, let’s answer the question, “Is there truly a reason we should live rightly?” in real society. The methods above list actions to encourage living rightly, rather than reasons why we should live rightly. So, what is the reason we should live rightly? First, defining what a righteous life is takes priority. A righteous life is not merely acting kindly toward others to the point of self-sacrifice, but rather securing one’s own interests without harming others. It is a win-win strategy where both parties benefit. This cannot be called a wrong life. However, situations may arise where one person inevitably suffers loss. In such cases, one can only appeal to personal morality. If retaliation is ineffective and communication fails to narrow differences, there is no reason to act rightly. Except when enforced by law or rules, there is no reason to live rightly in unforced situations.
Thus far, we have discussed how to resolve the free rider problem in group assignments, the basis for doing so, and whether this extends to the need to live a righteous life. Based on the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, we concluded it can be resolved by ensuring free riders face certain retaliation. Based on the communication hypothesis, we concluded that frequent discussion and deliberation can aid in problem-solving. When defining a righteous life as coexisting while securing benefits without causing harm, I believe there is sufficient reason to live righteously. However, if a situation arises where someone inevitably suffers harm beyond this definition, I see no reason to live righteously. Of course, definitions of a righteous life vary, and some may prioritize others even at their own expense. Yet, this is merely a choice; I see no reason to sacrifice oneself for others.
