People often choose to break social norms to benefit themselves. Just like the free-rider in the group task, self-interest maximizing behavior occurs in a variety of situations, including cash payments, illegal advertising, and embezzling public funds. These behaviors are more pronounced when they are perceived to be more rewarding than playing by the rules or when the probability of getting caught is low. The need to uphold society’s altruistic trust is great, but in practice, personal gain is swaying that standard.
In a college class, someone will feel frustrated with a group assignment, and when that frustration reaches a boiling point, it can lead to conflict. This is because the willingness to contribute to group work varies from group to group, with some people contributing more and others contributing less. A particular problem is “free riding”. Since group work is generally evaluated the same for all members, it’s possible for members who don’t actually participate in the work to receive the same score as their teammates.
The best thing you can do to prevent free-riding is to try the following Consider a typical four-person group assignment. Assuming that everyone wants to avoid an F grade, after the first group assignment, have each group select their top four contributors. The top contributors then form a new group, and the second-, third-, and fourth-ranked students form a new group in the same way. In this case, a group with only the fourth-ranked contributors is at risk of getting an F because the entire group is a free rider. This makes everyone strive to avoid an F and increases the likelihood that they will give up the free ride. Also, if you continue to reorganize groups in this way at the end of each assignment, each member will strive for a higher contribution ranking on the assignment, which can improve overall participation in the assignment.
However, in a group of free riders, if someone sticks to free riding until the end and someone else completes the assignment, it’s difficult to completely solve the free riding problem. As a way to enforce this, you might consider introducing a “three strikes and you’re out” system. If a student is ranked fourth in contributions three times in a row, they are given an F grade, regardless of the reason. This would minimize the problem of free riding.
So, what are the underlying causes of free riding? According to social convention, if you’re in a group, it’s the “right choice” to take equal responsibility for the work. However, the reasons for free riding are simple. It’s because it’s in their best interest. The aforementioned anti-free-riding measures also force individuals to act to avoid penalties, not simply to do what is socially correct. In this way, people’s behavioral decisions are driven by self-interest. Of course, if an action is both beneficial and right, people will be willing to do it. What we’re talking about is how individuals determine when an action is not beneficial to them but is still the right thing to do. To this end, we will use examples of selfless actions that are beneficial to show that individuals prioritize the pursuit of profit over the right thing to do.
First, we can define living right as acting altruistically. But what happens when doing the right thing penalizes an individual, and doing the opposite does not result in any real disadvantage? For example, consider the situation of paying with cash. When you go to your local hair salon, the hairdresser will often ask you, “Do you have cash on you?” if you want to pay by card. Some department stores also offer discounts for paying with cash at the store’s discretion. The reason merchants and service providers prefer cash payments is that cash transactions are not recorded and therefore not taxed. As a result, the merchant benefits by avoiding taxes, and the customer benefits by getting the service at a discount. However, these transactions are unselfish acts aimed at avoiding taxes, which is neither legal nor desirable. The reduced tax revenue must be made up in other forms of taxation, so it’s like shifting your own tax burden onto others. However, from a consumer perspective, paying in cash is economically beneficial and is less likely to get caught, so even if it does, it usually only punishes the seller who asked for cash. In fact, many people take advantage of cash payments when they are available. This example shows that there are situations where people will behave altruistically when there is no penalty.
Next, what if the side effects of an altruistic behavior are acceptable and the benefits are great? Consider the case of Company A. A few years ago, Company A wanted to advertise to promote its products, but due to lack of funds, it was not possible to advertise in the mass media. Company A chose the strategy of posting flyers in a large area. The flyers were posted everywhere, including prohibited places, and people who saw the flyers constantly became interested in the product. As a result, Company A was fined for illegal billboards, but the small fine was worth the publicity, which was comparable to a TV commercial. This strategy was an altruistic choice. Individuals were exposed to unnecessary advertising and were at a disadvantage in a fair advertising market. However, Company A benefited greatly and was later recognized as a unique marketing example and as a company that tried something new. As you can see, if an altruistic choice with inevitable losses can lead to greater gains, individuals will make it, and society will not discourage them.
Finally, there are times when the cost of acting unselfishly for gain is quite high, but it doesn’t always happen. For example, if you embezzle money from your company, your gain will be the amount of money you stole, but if you get caught, you’ll pay a big price: loss of job, fines, loss of trust and honor. These costs are generally greater than the gain, but only “if” you get caught. Therefore, the probability of getting caught is also an important consideration in this situation. If the probability of getting caught is low, then the equation “(benefit) > (individual’s perceived probability of getting caught) X (cost of getting caught)” can be considered beneficial, leading to altruistic behavior. Of course, the probability of getting caught cannot be accurately measured and depends on the individual’s risk-taking propensity, but the existence of people in society who are caught embezzling shows that there are individuals who take risks and act altruistically for the sake of gain.
The three examples above illustrate that people are more likely to choose altruistic behavior if the benefits outweigh the costs. In the first and second cases in particular, we can infer that the social climate tends to encourage or even condone these behaviors rather than discourage them. However, not enough consideration has been given to the intangible benefits of increased trust and happiness when all members of a society behave correctly. If we can include this aspect, the interpretation of human behavior centered on the pursuit of profit will be more realistic and appropriate. Furthermore, as the concept of “rational human beings” assumed in economics has been shown to be incomplete, a more inclusive discussion that includes factors such as conscience and beliefs would lead to more reasonable and empathetic conclusions.
