In this blog post, I’ll examine the causes of free-riding in college group projects and potential solutions from the perspective of evolutionary biology, and further reflect on why we should live righteously.
A few months ago, a carbonated beverage commercial became a hot topic. The ad features Seol-hyun, who feels frustrated by a senior’s demand—“Hey, underclassman, I’m a senior, so leave me out of the group project”—and, after drinking the beverage, responds with a satisfying retort: “Then I’ll leave your name out too!” The fact that many people related to this ad is evidence that “free-riding” frequently occurs in college group projects. Free-riding refers to the act of trying to earn grades without investing effort into group work. Instead of putting in the effort required for group projects, free-riders channel their energy into other personal activities to gain benefits. Since free-riders can prosper by reaping benefits while minimizing their own effort, from an evolutionary biology perspective, free-riding can be a advantageous strategy for survival. However, other group members not only end up with a heavier workload but also suffer mental distress. This behavior runs counter to the original purpose of group work, which is for all members to collaborate to solve assignments. For group activities to truly become an experience where students both learn and teach, free-riding must be eliminated. We will now examine in detail the reasons why free-riding occurs from the perspective of evolutionary biology and explore ways to prevent it. Finally, we will consider how refraining from free-riding can be linked to the belief that “we must live righteously” throughout our lives.
To resolve free-riding, we must first understand why it occurs. According to the renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, humans are merely machines created by genes, and the most important trait expected of successful genes is “ruthless selfishness.” Selfishness refers to a mindset that prioritizes one’s own interests above all else, without considering the interests of others or society. The behavior of free-riders can be explained by this selfishness. Free-riders pursue their own interests by neglecting group activities and focusing on individual tasks. They are indifferent to whether other group members suffer losses or experience mental distress. Therefore, free-riding can be seen as an example of humans faithfully following the genetic tendency to maximize their own interests.
The institutional imperfections of group activities provide fertile ground for human selfishness to manifest in the specific form of free-riding. In the drama ‘Songgot’, Ji Hyun-woo, a manager at Purumi Mart, asks Na Eui-sang, the director of a labor counseling center, “If what you say is true, Director, it seems French society is favorable toward unions. Our company is French, and our store manager is French too—so why do they reject the union?” Nae-sang replies, “Because it’s allowed here.” This implies that in an environment where workers are not sufficiently protected by the system and where penalties are not properly enforced, companies can reject labor unions. The same applies to the free-rider problem. Generally, group activities lack sufficient systems to control free-riders and evaluate them appropriately. This allows people to fully reveal their selfish nature—thinking, “It’s okay to do that here.” Summarizing the causes, preventing free-riding can be achieved by understanding that humans can be selfish and refining systems based on that understanding.
Turning human selfishness to our advantage is the starting point for a solution. Free-riders choose to free-ride because the benefits they gain from individual activity outweigh the losses they incur by not participating in group activities. Therefore, we can deter uncooperative behavior by raising the cost of non-participation to a level equal to or greater than the benefit. Imposing academic penalties is a simple yet effective method. Of course, students also gain intangible values such as a sense of cooperation and fulfillment while taking classes. However, grades are considered far more important because they remain on their academic record and serve as a measure of their capabilities when entering the workforce. Assigning a very low grade—such as a D or lower—to free-riders can deal a significant blow to their semester GPA. If it is difficult to make up for the loss caused by a D grade even with good performance in other courses, students will be reluctant to choose to free-ride. Historical examples also demonstrate the effectiveness of inflicting severe penalties to cause significant harm. During the Warring States Period, Shang Yang was appointed to a key position in the State of Qin, where corruption was rampant. He imposed harsh punishments regardless of whether the offense was minor or serious. Soon, people realized that they had nothing to gain from corruption, and the state began to find stability. However, in order to punish free-riders in this way, measures must first be put in place to identify them. This is because even if punishment standards are established, they hold no practical significance if there are no targets for punishment.
Choi Jeong-gyu states that people sometimes act for the benefit of others even when they derive no personal gain, and in some cases, they act based on strong reciprocity, using fairness or equity as important criteria for behavior and value judgments. Furthermore, according to George Akerlof and Robert Shiller—who were awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2001 and 2013, respectively—motivation based on fairness exerts a stronger influence than rational economic incentives, leading people to even incur costs to punish others for acting selfishly. These three scholars all agree that humans are highly sensitive to fairness. Applying this insight to group activities can help identify free-riders. The clearest method is to allow group members to voice their concerns when they perceive a fairness issue. If these concerns are documented in detail and the opinions of multiple group members are compiled, the instructor can identify the presence of free-riders. In fact, in 2016, Professor Kim Kwang-sik of Seoul National University, while teaching a writing course, required students to note in their group activity reports who had failed to fulfill their roles, who had been late, or who had been insincere. He also allowed students to post their peer evaluations anonymously to encourage more candid feedback.
To summarize the methods for preventing free-riding, the key is to institutionalize a system where group members provide feedback on their peers and assign very low grades to free-riders. This can be an effective approach because it taps into a long-standing aspect of human nature. People possess a dual nature: while they dread suffering losses, they are also willing to accept losses in order to punish others’ selfish behavior. Punishing with low grades stimulates the former tendency, while peer evaluation stimulates the latter. This can be a very powerful method because it discourages the motivation to free-ride and, even if free-riding occurs, makes it easy to detect. Furthermore, since this method involves little cost—whether for the instructor to assign low grades or for students to conduct peer evaluations—it can be applied in practice without significant difficulty.
Contemplating ways to prevent free-riding raises a more fundamental question: “Is there a reason we should live righteously?” If such a reason exists, it provides strong justification for the argument that free-riding should not be tolerated. To address this, we must first examine what righteousness is.
In his work ‘The Republic’, Plato states that the human soul consists of wisdom, which enables reason; courage, which enables will; and temperance, which restrains desires; and that a person is considered righteous when these three elements are in harmony. In response, the character Glaucon asks Socrates: If righteousness is good, is it something we desire for its own sake? Is it good both in itself and because of its consequences? Or is it good not for its own sake, but because the rewards it brings are good? Socrates replies that righteousness falls into the second category. Glaucon immediately counters that most people hold the third view: they live righteously not because righteousness is good in itself, but to avoid the worst-case scenario in which everyone acts unrighteously. Based on Glaucon’s reasoning, we can explain why free-riding is unacceptable. If all group members are tempted by the benefits of free-riding and each one withdraws from the group project, the group will fail to submit the assignment and receive no grade at all. To prevent this worst-case scenario, no one should free-ride in the first place. However, according to this explanation, refraining from free-riding stems from the selfish human nature of seeking to minimize losses, which conflicts with righteousness, which requires self-restraint. In other words, it is difficult to view the act of not free-riding as living righteously in and of itself. This conflict arises because Glaucon is mired in utilitarianism. Utilitarianism views individual benefit through a short-term, materialistic lens. However, in reality, we sometimes reap benefits only after a long time has passed, and we also regard spiritual and moral satisfaction as forms of benefit. We need to look at individual benefit from a broader and longer-term perspective to find the reason for living righteously.
As Plato stated earlier, righteousness is the realization of human virtues such as wisdom, courage, and temperance. However, most people may question the scope of virtue’s realization. While they agree that if many people practice virtue, society will transform into an orderly and just place, thereby promoting the interests of society as a whole, they believe that individuals who exercise temperance in the process will suffer a loss. This doubt stems from a utilitarian perspective, similar to that of Glaucon. However, if we take a broader and longer-term view of individual interests, we can see that they too can be enhanced. For example, if the chairman of a large corporation, Company A, guarantees employees reasonable working hours and high wages, the company may suffer immediate losses. However, such a policy fosters employee loyalty and boosts motivation, thereby increasing productivity. In the long run, the company’s exceptional productivity can generate profits that more than offset the immediate losses. Furthermore, by establishing an excellent corporate culture, the chairman of Company A can also experience psychological satisfaction, such as a sense of pride.
Moreover, from this perspective, the act of pursuing one’s own interests is not unconditionally defined as selfish. When the chairman of a large corporation, Company B, emulates Company A’s success and adopts the same strategy, the chairman reaps long-term benefits, and the employees also gain benefits in the form of reasonable working hours and higher wages. From the perspective of Company B’s chairman, since both “I” and “you” have benefited, the chairman’s actions cannot be described as a selfish act aimed solely at “my” own benefit. Living righteously can thus be beneficial both socially and personally. No one would refuse something that increases everyone’s chances of survival in the long run. This is why we must reject the notion of “ruthless selfishness” as human nature and strive to live righteously.
So far, we have examined free-riding from the perspective of evolutionary biology, explored the reasons behind it, and proposed effective ways to prevent it.
Humans constantly pursue their own interests, yet they also possess a desire to retaliate against others’ unfair behavior. Building on this, we discussed a plan to identify free-riding through mutual evaluation among group members and punish it with lower grades. We then moved beyond methods to prevent free-riding to discuss the question, “Is there a reason we should live righteously?” Since utilitarianism is a narrow perspective that views individual benefit as short-term and material, it struggled to explain righteousness itself. However, when individual benefit is expanded to include long-term and spiritual dimensions, righteousness can benefit not only society but also the individual. The reason we must live righteously is precisely because doing so benefits everyone. Let’s look further and broader to make the best strategy our own.
