The issue of free riding in group work is stressful for many college students. The best way to prevent free riding is to create a sense of moral obligation and conscience through group communication. This is more likely to encourage continued cooperation and good behavior than a simple grade penalty.
It’s the day before the group presentation, but the group hasn’t received the presentation script and PPT materials they asked for. There are four members, including the protagonist, but none of them have gotten back to her, so she stays up all night researching and completes the PPT materials and presentation script by herself. When the time comes for the presentation, there is no way they can give a good presentation. As a result, the protagonist receives a D grade along with the other members. This is an episode of Cheese in the Trap, which aired earlier this year. Viewers reacted strongly to the protagonist’s situation, sympathizing with the low grade he received because of his teammates who were getting a free ride.
The problem of free-riding on group work is common in college classes that include group work. Many college students are stressed by this issue, and everyone condemns free riding as a bad behavior. Why is it wrong to free ride? The main reason is that those who work hard on their assignments are not rewarded for their efforts, while those who do nothing or even harm their classmates are rewarded more than necessary. There are many different types of free riding, not only in college classes, but also in everyday life, and everyone agrees that it’s wrong. People who commit theft, taking the fruits of another’s hard work without paying for it, or stealing from others to save time while they wait, are condemned. People are sensitive to these selfish behaviors and emphasize the virtues of doing right. So why should we do right and what are some effective ways to get everyone to do right? First, let’s go back to the problem of free riding in a university class.
How can we prevent free riding and keep everyone engaged? If you look at the current method used by many schools, it’s mostly based on group members evaluating each other’s contributions and penalizing those who are free riding. However, it’s hard to know how well this works, as the methodology and scope of contribution varies from class to class. Another option is to have the total points earned on a group task be shared among the group members. For example, if a group received a total of 80 points on an assignment, they could divide the 80 points among themselves based on their contributions and then submit the results to the professor, who would then calculate their final score and apply it to their grade. These methods can be seen as retribution for selfish behavior, but they also have their limitations. This is because some students don’t mind receiving a lower grade for contribution. They only care about taking the course and don’t have a desire for a good grade. For these students, credit penalties are unlikely to get them to cooperate in group work. So what can you do to prevent free-riding by students for whom credit penalties don’t work well?
I think the best way to help prevent free-riding is to have frequent group talks. This can be supported by the communication hypothesis, which is one of the hypotheses that explain human altruistic behavior. The communication hypothesis explains that discussions or exchanges of opinions between members of a society lead to altruistic behavior. This is because communication creates a sense of moral obligation to perform socially beneficial actions. Communication also creates a sense of community among members and creates a sense of guilt for those who act selfishly, providing an incentive to perform desirable behaviors. Even students who are not concerned with grades may feel guilty about talking about their work with someone who is being harmed by it, and may feel obligated to help them. This weighs on their minds and motivates them to behave more cooperatively. And the more often you communicate, the stronger this effect is, so make sure to set up multiple opportunities to exchange ideas during the course of the assignment. Of course, contribution evaluation may be more effective for credit-conscious members of a group because it provides a greater incentive to cooperate, but a sense of moral obligation and conscience can be effective regardless of whether or not they care about credit.
The role of the professor or instructor is also important to prevent free riding in group work. Professors should regularly check the progress of the assignment and provide an environment that fosters communication among the group. For example, you can ask for interim reports at each stage of the project so that you can see where everyone is contributing. This will help clarify the division of roles among team members and create an atmosphere that discourages free riding.
Now, let’s expand the meaning of free riding and think about why people do the right thing: why do some people do the right thing and not act selfishly by adopting a free-riding strategy? It could be because they fear retribution and hope for reward, as the reciprocity hypothesis explains. Or, as the costly signaling hypothesis suggests, it could be because they want to show off their abilities through altruistic behavior to gain reproductive and social benefits. There is also some validity to the argument that altruistic behavior increases the overall utility of society. However, I think these explanations are limited in their ability to address the underlying motivation to live right.
If we are trying to persuade someone to live rightly, is it persuasive to say “because doing bad things will be punished” or “because doing good things will be rewarded”? A person who chooses to live rightly for these reasons may be tempted to do bad things again if they find a way to get away with it, and if they realize that they will not be rewarded for being good, they will gradually lose the desire to live rightly. So, is it effective to say, ‘Helping others is a way to show your abilities’ or ‘Society can develop if everyone lives selflessly’? The former will not work for people who do not have a desire to show off their abilities, and even if they do, they may resist the idea of doing the right thing for this reason, so it is not likely to be a fundamental motivation. The latter is unlikely to work for someone who is indifferent to the utility and progress of society as a whole.
However, saying, ‘If you see someone in need and pass by, you will feel guilty, and you can resolve this discomfort by doing the right thing,’ is a method that can be applied to everyone, because moral obligation and conscience are ideas that are developed through communication and interaction with others, and no one lives without interacting with others. They are inherent in all people and serve as fundamental motivators that are not significantly affected by punishment or reward. Since the above methods provide extrinsic rewards, it’s hard to sustain good behavior when the rewards are no longer available. However, methods that appeal to a sense of moral obligation and conscience will be more effective at sustaining correct behavior because they provide a fundamental, internal reward that relieves discomfort.
These principles don’t just apply to relationships between individuals; they can also be reflected in the structures and institutions of society as a whole. Laws, norms, and education systems should be designed to stimulate a person’s sense of moral obligation and conscience, leading to the right behavior. For example, laws should be based on citizens’ understanding and agreement of why they should obey the law, not simply deterrence through punishment. Education should not only impart knowledge, but also develop students’ ability to collaborate with each other and make moral judgments. This will help society as a whole develop into a healthy community that operates with a sense of moral obligation and conscience.
As we’ve seen, the sense of moral obligation and conscience that every human being has explains why we should live right. We feel guilty when we pass by someone in need or do something wrong, and we have a sense of moral obligation to help them or do the right thing in these situations. This sense of moral obligation and the motivation to resolve the internal discomfort caused by a guilty conscience through correct behavior are internal factors that all humans have. Therefore, through communication and interaction between members of society, we can make sure that these factors work properly and create a society in which we can all live correctly.
