In this blog post, we’ll examine the causes of free-riding in group projects, explore long-term and short-term solutions to reduce it, and consider why it’s so difficult to prevent free-riding in the real world outside of school.
Group projects are often cited as an “example of why socialism failed.” Since everyone is evaluated based on a collective outcome, “free riders” emerge who approach the task half-heartedly, thinking, “Someone else will do it.” Moreover, this kind of free-riding is so common that every college student encounters it two or three times before graduation. Because the free-riding problem is so severe, college students often cringe at the thought of group projects and even voice complaints that professors choose group-based grading simply because it’s easier for them to evaluate. Nevertheless, due to the benefits group projects offer, it’s difficult for students to avoid them entirely. This is because group projects offer significant educational benefits within the academic setting, and there is almost no work done entirely alone outside of school. One study reported that trust and communication are crucial in the collaboration process within virtual teams, and that teams exhibiting high levels of trust demonstrated effective behavior in solving problems and resolving conflicts. Furthermore, even after leaving school, most projects undertaken in the workplace or in research laboratories are collaborative efforts. If group projects are unavoidable, we need a way to improve the system to reduce free-riding. Currently, in university courses, a method where group members evaluate one another is widely used to address this issue. However, this method only partially resolves the free-rider problem. To effectively improve group work, we must consider both long-term and short-term perspectives to create an environment where altruism can thrive. On the other hand, in a sense, most of the relationships we form throughout our lives can be viewed as a kind of group project, in that they involve shared effort to achieve shared results. Therefore, if we extend this discussion beyond the classroom, we might consider whether it is possible to prevent free-riding throughout society as a whole, thereby encouraging its members to lead virtuous lives.
From a long-term perspective, group assignments can be improved through an evolutionary biology approach. From the perspective that natural selection operates during the evolutionary process, if altruistic individuals who only suffer losses continue to be at a disadvantage, they may eventually be at a disadvantage in survival and reproduction compared to selfish individuals. Nevertheless, the persistence of altruistic behavior can be explained by the group selection hypothesis. This hypothesis posits that when the group—rather than the individual—is viewed as a single unit, altruistic groups may gain an advantage over selfish groups in natural selection. In the relationship between altruistic and selfish individuals, the altruistic individual suffers a loss while the selfish individual gains an advantage. However, when individuals with the same disposition—such as altruistic individuals or selfish individuals—form relationships, it is the relationship between altruistic individuals that yields the greatest benefit. In a group project, a person who works diligently for the benefit of the entire group is an altruistic individual, while a person who makes no effort at all and shifts the workload onto other group members is a selfish individual. According to the group selection hypothesis, in order for altruistic individuals to survive, an appropriate environment must be created. To achieve this, sufficient information about one another must first be provided. Relationships among group members are typically one-time occurrences. It is rare to be randomly assigned to a group with someone you’ve previously worked with. Therefore, when selecting group members, individuals are chosen at random without knowing whether a person is altruistic or selfish. As a result, the number of altruistic individuals in each group does not vary significantly. Comparative advantages between groups diminish, while comparative advantages among individuals within a group become more prominent. Since the rate of natural selection can accelerate as intra-group comparative advantages increase, this creates an environment that is disadvantageous for altruistic individuals to survive. To prevent this situation, the mutual evaluation scores between group members should be preserved and used as the basis for group formation.
For example, suppose a person named A participates in group projects for Course 1 and Course 2. By standardizing the peer evaluation method across all courses, A is assigned the average of the peer evaluation scores received in Course 1 and Course 2. When forming groups for Course 3, everyone reviews each other’s peer evaluation scores and uses them as the basis for group formation. Naturally, A would want to be in a group with members who have high scores. However, if A’s own score is low, those with high scores will not want to be paired with A. Conversely, if A’s evaluation score is high, A can easily form a group with others who have high scores. When people with similar tendencies gather in this way, the comparative advantage between individuals within the group diminishes. However, the comparative advantage between groups—one composed of altruistic people and the other of selfish people—increases. Since individuals in the self-interested group achieve only low performance, they are motivated to strive to move up to the altruistic group. Even if a self-interested person is satisfied with low performance and continues to adhere to self-interested behavior, they will remain in the self-interested group, so the harm caused to altruistic individuals is minimal. If this system creates an environment where the group selection hypothesis can operate, it can weed out free-riders and reduce free-riding. However, this system carries the risk of causing conflict or fostering hostility by making peer evaluation scores public. In such cases, only the instructor should be able to view the cumulative scores, and the instructor should arbitrarily assign students to groups based on similar scores. This approach would minimize the potential for conflict while effectively weeding out free-riders over the long term, thereby reducing free-riding.
However, there are other reasons for free-riding besides selfish tendencies. If someone is determined to free-ride due to selfish motives, this can be prevented through long-term solutions. Yet, even someone who has worked hard in the past might unintentionally become a free-rider in this particular class. This happens when responsibilities are unclear. When responsibilities are unclear, free-riding can occur due to the “bystander effect.” As responsibility becomes diffuse, people may not take the initiative, thinking, “Someone else will do it even if I don’t,” or they may adopt a passive attitude because they are unsure whether a task falls within their scope of responsibility. Many courses already require students to divide tasks and assign roles for each group project. However, this is largely meaningless because groups typically assign roles arbitrarily and apply the same evaluation criteria across all roles regardless of the specific task. To reduce the bystander effect, every group must be assigned the same set of roles, and fair, role-specific evaluation criteria must be established. This instills a sense of responsibility, as students realize there is no colleague who can take over their assigned role.
To address this issue, Dr. Kim Sang-kyun experimented with assigning one of seven predefined roles to each of the seven group members. He then established separate evaluation criteria for each role. For example, the CMO role is responsible for communication with other teams and the supervising professor. Accordingly, the CMO’s evaluation is based on criteria such as the quality of presentations on plans and reports, as well as the aesthetic quality of deliverables, and is calculated by combining 20% from the team’s overall deliverables and 80% from the role performance score. The study found that this role-assignment method was effective in reducing free-riding and conflicts among group members compared to peer evaluation. To prevent short-term free-riding, this role-assignment technique should be adopted to increase students’ sense of responsibility, and clearly defined evaluation criteria should be utilized as a new motivational tool. However, this technique must be used in conjunction with long-term measures to prevent free-riding. This is because the role-assignment technique may cause individuals to focus solely on their own roles, thereby reducing their overall understanding of the project. In the case of the CMO, since the team’s overall output accounts for only 20% of the evaluation, this could lead to students focusing solely on their own tasks and neglecting the group’s overall output. To prevent this, peer evaluation scores should be accumulated so that group members can monitor one another and ensure that no one neglects the overall output. The free-riding problem that arises in school group projects can thus be addressed from these two perspectives.
But what about outside of school? From something as small as buying fish at the local fish market to something as significant as an important business contract, most of the relationships we encounter are similar to group projects. We can choose to deceive others to maximize our own gain, or we can choose the common good. To answer the question of whether we should live righteously, we must consider whether our society provides an environment where altruism can thrive. The answer is “no.” In other words, we do not need to live morally correct lives. We often categorize altruistic choices as “good” and their opposites as “evil.” However, the most fundamental goal for all living beings can be seen as the pursuit of survival and comfort, rather than judgments of moral good and evil. If altruism helps us survive and ensures a comfortable life, we will choose it; if not, it is natural to choose the opposite.
Of course, altruism has survived throughout human history. There are also several evolutionary biological hypotheses that seek to explain this. However, these hypotheses do not claim that altruism has an evolutionary advantage over selfishness. If that were the case, selfishness would have been weeded out and disappeared. What the hypotheses suggest is that, under certain conditions, altruism can coexist with selfishness without becoming extinct. And those conditions involve situations where mutually altruistic individuals can benefit from their interactions—such as in “altruism versus altruism” scenarios. However, in many of the relationships we encounter, we cannot change the other person regardless of the outcome. For example, even if you suffer a loss in a relationship with a selfish boss, you cannot replace that boss with an altruistic one. That is why there is a gap between evolutionary biology hypotheses and today’s reality. It is simply not an environment where altruistic individuals can benefit. In that case, the choice one must make for survival and comfort can only be the opposite. This can be likened to a group project with no mechanism to prevent free-riding. In a group project without mechanisms such as peer evaluation or task assignment, free-riding can become the best choice. Even if we attempt to implement systems to prevent free-riding, the relationships we form in life are so diverse and complex that it is nearly impossible to resolve the issue with simple measures like those used in group projects. Ultimately, when considering the basic instincts of living organisms, there is no reason to choose to live a virtuous life.
The free-riding problem is the primary cause of students’ resentment toward group projects. To prevent free-riding and improve the group project experience, solutions must be introduced from two perspectives. In the long term, mutual evaluation scores should be accumulated and used to form groups of students with similar dispositions. This would ensure that, in accordance with the group selection hypothesis, altruistic groups can reap greater benefits. In the short term, responsibilities and evaluation criteria for each role must be clearly defined, and pre-assigned roles must be distributed to prevent the bystander effect. In school group projects, it is possible to encourage proper behavior in this manner. However, the various relationships we encounter in life differ from group projects. An environment where altruistic behavior can thrive has not been sufficiently established. In particular, the fact that we cannot form or end relationships as we please makes it difficult for altruism to survive. Various laws and institutions are being introduced to ensure that altruism can survive even within the complex relationships of real life. However, considering basic needs for survival and comfort, there still seems to be absolutely no reason to choose to live a virtuous life.
