This article analyzes the causes of free riding in groups and suggests regular communication between members as a solution. It explains how various experiments have shown that retaliatory measures, such as fines, are not effective in preventing free-riding, but rather, how to encourage altruistic behavior by increasing trust through communication and strengthening the sense of community.
Activities where people work together to solve a problem, such as group work, face a number of challenges. The main causes of difficulties in group work are poor role division due to miscommunication or conflict among group members, and members not fulfilling their assigned roles. Poor communication can cause problems from the very beginning of the task. If roles aren’t clearly defined or schedules aren’t coordinated, group members can become confused. Not only does this slow down progress, but it also increases the likelihood of unnecessary conflict. When members don’t fulfill their roles, or “free riding,” it’s often due to a lack of accountability. It takes a certain amount of effort to produce the results a group is supposed to produce. However, the more unselfish behavior like “free riding” occurs in a group, the more the amount of work assigned to the responsible members increases, which puts a lot of pressure on the conscientious few.
If a small number of responsible members in a group are repeatedly asked to handle a large amount of work, the psychological pressure on them will gradually increase. This can lead to a decrease in the quality of the work, and relationships between members can deteriorate. It’s ironic that those who complete a task are judged as one and those who have a “meh” attitude are judged as free riders. To prevent this unfair treatment from happening, many groups have systems in place to discourage free riding. Retaliatory methods of deterring free-riding include removing the free-rider from the team roster altogether or attaching a peer review sheet to the deliverable, but these methods have the side effect of making the same members feel like they are being watched and potential free-riders. While these methods may work in the short term, they run the risk of eroding trust and teamwork among members.
I think the best way to prevent free-riding is through regular communication between members. This approach is based on mutual trust, and the key is to hold each member accountable. When you share your thoughts and progress through regular conversations, you naturally hold each other accountable, which reduces the likelihood of free riding. The power of communication is greater than you might think, and it’s been proven in many different groups.
How can you prevent free-riders by simply communicating with each other? Building consensus through dialog is more than just exchanging opinions, it’s a process of understanding and adjusting to each other’s positions. People communicate with other people through conversations, and diplomacy, the foreign relations between countries, is also a form of communication. Since communication plays an important role in almost every aspect of the world, it can be used to prevent free-riders. For example, in the enterprise, there are many studies that show that good communication within a team has a direct impact on job performance. These examples show how important communication is to the success of an organization.
Communication hypotheses include the hypothesis that members of a society come to understand what behaviors are socially desirable through communication, and the hypothesis that members feel obligated to engage in socially beneficial behaviors. Also included in the communication hypothesis are the hypotheses that communication increases trust among members and that it creates a sense of collective responsibility among members. Trust and accountability are important factors that form the basis of effective collaboration. When these factors are in place, conflicts between members are reduced and tasks can be accomplished more efficiently.
The Commons Game experiment, which validates the communication hypothesis, suggests that the tragedy of the commons can be prevented if members have sufficient opportunities to communicate. The tragedy of the commons is when members of a community use a shared resource more than they should, causing the shared resource to shrink or deplete, to the detriment of all members. This experiment consists of four experiments that introduce retaliatory measures, communication between members, and other factors to prevent tragedies of the commons. We conducted four experiments: Experiment 1, which introduced a retaliatory penalty system, Experiment 2, which only tried to introduce it, Experiment 3, which added one-time communication between members, and Experiment 4, which added regular communication.
The results showed that in Experiments 2 and 3, public good use decreased only immediately after the introduction of the fine system and after the communication, respectively, and that over time, members’ public good use returned to its previous level. In contrast, in Experiments 1 and 4, public good use decreased and remained at that level. These experiments show that regular communication can lead to and sustain altruistic behavior. While introducing a penalty system is just as effective as communication, factors such as the resistance that the idea of retaliation creates among members suggest that increasing communication among members is more effective than other measures in terms of group harmony and trust among participants.
The results of these experiments can be applied to a wide range of organizations. From small organizations like companies and clubs to national policies, communication is crucial. Without regular meetings and consultations, conflicts between members are inevitable.
The results of effective communication can be applied to how to prevent free riding in group activities. If we introduce regular communication in groups as a way to reduce free-riders, the outcomes of the communication hypothesis can occur, such as members feeling obligated to act in the best interest of the group, increased trust among members, and a sense of community among members, which in turn leads to all members acting altruistically and eliminating free-riders from the group.
Thus, we can see that the communication hypothesis can be used effectively to prevent free-riders. The idea of stopping free riders is to avoid harming others. But that’s not the only reason why you shouldn’t free ride. In addition to protecting others, there are also reasons why you shouldn’t do it for yourself. The reason why you shouldn’t free ride is related to the broader question of why you should live right.
