College students are immersed in various tasks right after the start of the semester, and they suffer from free-riding due to inactive participation, especially in group work. To prevent this, reputational retaliation strategies, role division, and peer review systems can be introduced to strengthen cooperation and responsibility.
Right after the start of the semester, college students are bombarded with assignments. It’s not uncommon to see college students working on assignments in the university library. One of the types of assignments that often elicit sighs of frustration from students is group work, or “teamwork,” which has become so infamous that parodies have been created around it, such as the “Group Work Atrocity. One of the reasons for this notoriety is the problem of passive participation, or “free riding,” by some members of the group. Given the collaborative nature of group work, there has always been and always will be a problem with free riding. One of the reasons for free-riding is self-interest, where people want to get credit but don’t want to do the work. So, what can be done to prevent free riding?
The most classic way to retaliate against free riders is to introduce a peer review system, in which people who don’t participate get lower scores. The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t address people who don’t value credit. An alternative solution to this problem is to organize groups with “keepers,” such as people from the same class. The reason for this is that if the rumor of the free rider spreads in the group, it will affect the free rider’s interpersonal relationships, which are not related to grades. This can be seen as an extension of the retaliation strategy above, using the social aspect of reputation. While it may seem harsh, this strategy can be used to reduce free riding in group work.
The “retaliation” used in this strategy utilizes the concept of Tit for Tat (TFT) theory. This theory explains why humans behave altruistically, starting with ‘cooperation’ in a mutual transaction, and then retaliating in kind if the other party betrays them in a subsequent transaction. Through this repetition of good deeds and retaliation, individuals become reluctant to be victims of retaliation for their own betrayal, which leads them to cooperate with each other. The weakness of this theory is that it presupposes repeated situations of cooperation and retaliation, so it is difficult to apply this theory to situations where this cannot happen, i.e., one-time situations.
So, let’s apply the TFT theory to the group work situation. As a university as a whole, there are so many people in the university that it is overwhelmingly likely that the group work is a one-off. However, this situation fits the weakness of the TFT strategy: it is a non-recurring situation. This is where the problematic situation of the theory comes into play. However, by limiting the audience of the group to “people you will see again and again,” the transactions with group members are more likely to be repeated not only in the group, but also in subsequent interpersonal interactions, thus compensating for the problem of the one-time group situation.
In addition to adopting TFT theory to prevent free-riding in groups, it is also important to improve the way groups operate. For example, one way to do this is to create a contract that clearly divides the roles in the group and specifies the responsibilities of each person. It can also be effective to introduce a system that regularly checks in on the progress of the group and evaluates each person’s contribution through midterm feedback. This will ensure that no one is neglecting their role, while also giving them the opportunity to collaborate and complement each other’s work.
So, is there a reason to live right? For the purposes of this question, we’ll define living right as living by social norms. These social norms sometimes require individuals to make sacrifices, which is why personal value judgments and social correctness conflict. So, why do we have to sacrifice our own self-interest to comply with social norms? People often say that we have to comply with social norms because otherwise society would collapse. And, this is true. Social norms are rules set by the people in a society, and if they are not followed, the society will be disorganized. However, there are plenty of people who don’t follow them. In fact, there are many people who do better than those who follow the norms. The more such people there are, the more the culture of not observing norms will spread and society will disintegrate, and then the state of “everyone against everyone” will literally persist, which is not a comfortable situation for individuals to live in.
So, what should be done to improve this situation? Let’s go back to the group work situation. We took the strategy of using retaliation to stop free riding. Let’s apply this to society. If we look at a transaction as a transaction between an individual and society, rather than an individual and an individual, then if an individual betrays – if they misbehave – society retaliates – socially punishes them. Unless an individual lives in isolation from society, the transaction between an individual and society will not be a one-time event. Therefore, the TFT strategy should work quite well.
In conclusion, college students should adopt various strategies to prevent free-riding in group work. Peer review, pairing up with someone who will keep an eye on you, delineating roles and responsibilities, and regular progress checks and feedback can all help reduce the notoriety of group work. You can also emphasize the importance of living within social norms and maintaining good behavior through TFT theory. These efforts will lead to better cooperation and achievement in both college and social life.
