In this blog post, I will examine ways to prevent the free-riding phenomenon that occurs in group projects and, furthermore, explain why we should live righteously from a pragmatic perspective.

Causes of the Free-Riding Phenomenon and Basic Solutions

A video titled “The Trap of Group Projects,” posted long ago by the Samsung Group on Facebook, YouTube, and other platforms, has garnered a huge response. It has received over 62,000 Facebook likes and surpassed one million views on YouTube. This video is a campus drama depicting the challenges of “group projects” during college life, showing how, despite being a “group” project, the group leader ends up doing the work alone as if it were a “personal” assignment. As evidenced by the widespread resonance with the video’s content, the phenomenon of “free-riding” on group projects is a common sight, and its negative impact is significant. This is clearly illustrated by a survey conducted by the part-time job portal Albain, which polled 522 college students on group projects; 81% of respondents reported having encountered a “free-riding” team member.
In SNL Korea’s video titled “The Cruel History of Group Projects,” a team member responds to the team leader’s threat to remove their name if they don’t work by saying they absolutely cannot do that because teamwork scores are important. They reminded the leader that removing their name would lower the teamwork score, thereby lowering not only their own grade but also the team leader’s. As seen here, the main reason for the free-riding phenomenon in group projects is that all team members receive the same grade. Since everyone receives the same grade for the assignment regardless of their individual contribution, they do not participate diligently. Therefore, the first way to prevent free-riding is to ensure that each member’s contribution is reflected in the grade through peer evaluation.
Completing one’s assigned tasks serves as a signal to others of one’s diligence. Consequently, each member will actively participate in group activities to make a good impression on their peers. Furthermore, if a member fails to contribute, there is a high probability that other members will rate their contribution negatively, leading to a lower grade; thus, fear of such “retaliation” through grading encourages cooperation. However, contribution evaluations can be abused. For example, if there is existing animosity or a desire for a specific group member to receive a low grade, one might intentionally rate their contribution as low. Therefore, when evaluating contributions, roles must be clearly assigned, and the rationale for the evaluation must be made explicit.

Specific System Design: Role Allocation and Contribution Evaluation Methods

First, before starting the group assignment, explain the grading system and activity guidelines to the students. The proposed grading system and activity guidelines are as follows. The group’s grade is one of A, B, C, or D, and each member receives a score of +, 0, or – based on their contribution evaluation. The group leader receives a grade one level higher than their individual score only if they fulfill their assigned role. For example, if a group leader receives a B0, their final grade will be B+. The group leader’s responsibilities include gathering feedback from group members, submitting a report on the division of roles, and submitting interim and final reports.
In addition to the group leader, a secretary is appointed for each meeting, and this role rotates among members. The secretary creates a report detailing the date of the meeting, the number of attendees, the activities conducted, and the attitudes of the group members. After explaining these rules, a volunteer is selected as the group leader, and group activities begin. The group leader explains the assigned tasks with the full participation of all members, ensures everyone understands them, and then has each member voluntarily take on individual tasks.
Contribution evaluations are conducted anonymously regarding group members other than oneself. Scores range from 1 point (no participation) to 100 points (diligent participation), and students are required to list any deductions. For example, for a score of 80, one might write: “(-10): Missed two meetings, (-10): Submitted assigned task late.” An individual’s contribution score is calculated as the average of the scores they received. If group activities are conducted based on this contribution evaluation, the free-riding phenomenon is expected to be minimized.

Reasons for Living Righteously and a Pragmatic Interpretation

So far, we have explored ways to prevent free-riding, but why should one actively participate in group activities? Furthermore, why should one live righteously? The primary reason for actively participating in group activities is to earn good grades—that is, for personal gain. Similarly, the ultimate reason for living righteously is also related to personal benefit.
First, living righteously reduces the likelihood of retaliation against oneself and increases the likelihood that others will show goodwill toward oneself. As society has developed and become more specialized, the importance of collaboration has grown. Since we cannot do everything on our own, we both help others and receive help from others. If I help others, they will help me in return. Conversely, if I do not help others, they will not help me in return. If we act selfishly, the person who has been wronged will not only refuse to help us but may also spread rumors about what happened to them. A decline in social reputation leads to isolation in an environment based on trust, which in turn makes daily life difficult for the individual. In conclusion, living righteously is an act in one’s own interest to avoid retaliation.
Second, an individual’s survival is closely linked to the survival of the group. Society is a collection of various groups, and competition between groups is inevitable. The fate of the group has a significant impact on an individual’s survival. For example, if a company goes bankrupt, it is only natural that the lives of most of its employees become very difficult. Therefore, individuals act not only for their own success but also for the maintenance and growth of the group. The more altruistic people there are in a group, the more the group prospers. This is because having many altruistic people in a group means there are many who are willing to make sacrifices for the group and the public good. Therefore, from an individual’s perspective, the more righteously one lives, the more one’s group grows, and the more one benefits from that growth.
Finally, righteous behavior creates an advantage for an individual’s social survival. Acting righteously indirectly reveals one’s character. Choosing to act righteously even when it is not a duty is akin to choosing to incur a cost. Consequently, righteous behavior causes others to view me positively and ultimately benefits my social survival. Furthermore, from the perspective of “birds of a feather flock together,” altruistic people tend to form relationships with other altruistic people; thus, acting righteously increases the likelihood of associating with the right people, which benefits both parties.
As we have seen, the fundamental reason for living righteously is related to “personal gain.” Right conduct benefits the individual by increasing the likelihood of receiving help, fostering the prosperity of the group to which the individual belongs, and improving relationships with others. Behind the outwardly noble “right conduct” may lie a pragmatic attitude. The question of whether this hidden pragmatic individual is truly “right” will continue to be debated.