To address the problem of free-riding in group activities, we suggest ways to understand human nature and use it to drive altruistic behavior, highlighting the importance of helping students experience the value of cooperation and learn positive social roles.
Group activities are not just a tool to solve a task; they are an important experience that builds the ability to reconcile diverse opinions, respect each other’s perspectives, and create better outcomes through cooperation. Through these processes, college students can learn the teamwork and cooperation needed in society. However, at some point, group work has become a painful activity that college students shy away from. One of the reasons for this is the frequent occurrence of free-riding, which stems from the selfish desire to get the most benefit for the least amount of effort.
Instead of teaching students the value of cooperation, free-riding creates distrust and frustration. So, is there a way to stop free-riding and get the group experience everyone wants? In the following, we’ll look at how to prevent free riding based on human nature, and then extend this to the context of moral choices in everyday life to talk about why we should live right.
Given the various hypotheses about human nature, we believe that the best way to design a group activity is as follows: after the first group activity, which is a non-credit assignment, anonymously evaluate the contributions of each group member and reorganize groups of people with similar contributions based on the evaluation. It is important to note that students are not told in advance that the first assignment is non-credit and that the group contributions will be evaluated. This way, students will experience the meaning of true collaboration in their first group activity.
The reason for suggesting this is simple. If the first assignment counts for a grade, you could end up with students who are free-riders, and if the group contribution assessment is known in advance, you could end up with students who only do their best work in the first group activity. To avoid these problems, it’s important to view group work as an extension of learning, and to provide assignments consistently.
Like the Hammurabi Code principle of “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” humans tend to perform altruistic acts in order to receive help in times of need in the future. This is called the repetition-reciprocity hypothesis, and the method of group contribution assessment is a straightforward application of this principle. In addition, as the tasks are provided little by little and consistently, students will become more engaged in the group activities. Contribution assessment also fits with the homophily hypothesis, which states that groups of people with similar dispositions and mindsets will contribute to better group performance.
What makes my proposed method work is the assumption that humans are not just creatures who do the right thing only when compelled to do so, but that they have an inherent reason to do the right thing. This approach allows students to learn the value of better cooperation and mutual understanding through group activities.
After discussing how to stop free riding in the group activity, let’s extend this to moral choices in everyday life. We can define “right” as not only not harming others, but also including altruistic behavior that benefits other members of the community, even if it comes at a cost or sacrifice to the individual. So why should people live right? We can look at this in three ways.
First, there’s the simple and obvious reason that right behavior benefits not only others but also ourselves. As the recurrence-reciprocity hypothesis and the eusociality hypothesis described earlier show, by providing benefits to others, you benefit yourself directly and materially. In practice, however, altruistic behavior more often requires sacrifice on the part of the individual. Is there any reason why humans shouldn’t act rightly even in these situations? In conclusion, right behavior can bring indirect and spiritual benefits to the actor in the long run, even if it doesn’t benefit them in the short run.
Next, let’s consider the long-term benefits that can be gained on a collective level. Given that natural selection occurs in groups rather than individuals, the benefits of a group are directly linked to how well the group can survive in a changing environment. In a group activity, the group as a whole will be much more efficient when everyone is actively participating and making small sacrifices than when individuals are only looking out for their own interests. This same principle applies to the larger society. Throughout history, groups that have survived through altruistic behavior have been more likely to survive and prosper through the process of natural selection.
Finally, let’s consider the psychological benefits based on human nature: humans are not simply self-interested beings, but are hardwired to value social norms and fairness. For example, in the ultimatum game experiment by Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler, people tended to reject offers that were not fair. This behavior stems from our nature to punish unfairness, even if it means losing money. Humans can gain mental satisfaction and social rewards by acting in accordance with this nature.
So far, we have discussed how to prevent free-riding in group activities, and then extended this to reasons for humans to live rightly. As rational beings, humans can easily understand right behavior when it is in their own interests. However, even in situations where there is no benefit in sight, reasons to act rightly can be found in long-term benefits and mental satisfaction in accordance with human nature. Therefore, we should go beyond considering mere benefits and think deeply about reasons to act rightly from a long-term perspective.
