In this blog post, I’ll explore the meaning and necessity of altruistic behavior through the issue of free-riding in group projects.
In college classes, group projects are assignments that students don’t necessarily welcome with open arms. On the surface, they may seem like a form of collaboration where students share the burden of tackling difficult tasks together, but in reality, they harbor various problems. The most prominent of these problems is “free-riding.” As the term suggests, free-riding refers to a situation where a group member does not participate properly in group activities but reaps the same rewards by piggybacking on the efforts of other members. Since it involves gaining benefits without any effort, free-riding is bound to be a sweet temptation.
I, too, have experienced the temptation of free-riding. In a summer writing class, we had an assignment to write a group paper, and our group consisted of four people. One of the members, the oldest among us, was in a situation where he absolutely had to get a good grade due to personal circumstances. He approached the assignment with a strong sense of responsibility and worked harder than anyone else, and seeing this, the other group members naturally fell into the complacent mindset of thinking, “He’ll take care of everything.” I was no exception. In the end, the three of us—excluding him—chose to free-ride, and our group work became little more than a name, effectively devolving into individual efforts. Fortunately, the course graded students based on peer evaluations, and as a result, we all received different grades.
This phenomenon of “free-riding” is not limited to college classes. It occurs frequently throughout society wherever group life takes place, stemming from an attitude that prioritizes individual gain. Moreover, the temptation to free-ride is quite sweet; in fact, it can even make those who do not free-ride appear foolish. However, if everyone makes only selfish choices, society will gradually lose trust and cease to function as a community. That is why we need institutional mechanisms to curb free-riding. Just like the peer evaluation system among group members mentioned earlier. But the more fundamental question we must consider is whether we have a reason to avoid free-riding even without such external sanctions. Where does the moral imperative to resist this sweet temptation and act altruistically come from?
First, it is important to understand why free-riding occurs in group activities. To do this, let’s use a simple game-theoretic approach. In group activities, individuals can choose to either “participate” or “not participate” (free-ride). Let’s assume that participating requires an effort of -1 and yields a reward of 2. On the other hand, free-riding requires no effort, but the individual still gains 1.5 thanks to the group’s collective effort. In this scenario, from an individual’s perspective, it seems more advantageous to gain a net benefit of 1.5 without any effort than to expend effort (-1) to gain a net benefit of 1. However, from the group’s perspective, it is more desirable for all members to participate and share in the high outcomes together. Ultimately, to reduce free-riding, it is necessary to either increase the rewards for participation or reduce the benefits gained from free-riding.
The most commonly used method is to introduce a peer evaluation system among group members to reflect individual contributions. Instead of awarding the same score to the entire group, each member evaluates the others, and the results are reflected in the final grade, thereby “punishing” free-riders. From an individual’s perspective, this is a mechanism that ensures they cannot receive the full group score if they free-ride—in other words, it results in a tangible loss. By limiting the options available, this approach is undoubtedly effective. However, it also has several limitations. In particular, in courses where relative grading is applied, there is a risk of malicious evaluations. For example, a group member might give a low evaluation regardless of actual contribution in order to lower another member’s grade, and if such manipulation occurs frequently, it can ultimately harm the entire group.
To mitigate these side effects, peer evaluations should be conducted repeatedly rather than as a one-time event. Typically, peer evaluations are conducted anonymously just once after a project is completed, which can encourage abuse. However, the situation changes if evaluations are conducted repeatedly on a weekly basis or at specific intervals, and the results are shared as feedback with the entire team. If repeated evaluations are announced in advance, group members will be more cautious in their evaluations of one another, and a cautious atmosphere will be established because malicious evaluations could affect the next evaluation. This approach, which casts a “shadow of the future,” can minimize side effects while maintaining the effect of preventing free-riding, making it a very practical and efficient solution.
So, moving beyond university group projects, why should we act altruistically in general situations where there are no sanctions or rewards? In other words, what is the justification for not free-riding? To answer this question, we first need to rethink the definition of “altruistic behavior.” Altruistic behavior is often viewed as the opposite of selfish behavior. Selfish behavior refers to actions that pursue one’s own interests without considering the interests of others, or that secure one’s own benefits at the expense of others. By contrast, altruistic behavior can be defined as actions that benefit others regardless of one’s own interests, or even at the cost of personal loss.
However, there is a contradiction here. How broadly should we define “others”? For example, suppose someone puts aside their personal aspirations and chooses a stable job to support their family. Since they made this choice for their family, they might appear to be an altruistic person. But if, in a crisis, they prioritize their family even at the expense of harming others, can they truly be considered altruistic? This ultimately demonstrates that if the concept of “altruism” is limited to a “close circle” such as family or friends, it can ultimately be interpreted as an extended form of selfishness.
Therefore, true altruistic behavior must be an action taken from a universal perspective that considers others with whom one has no direct vested interest—that is, society as a whole or humanity as a whole. Only actions rooted in a humanitarian or philanthropic perspective can be defined as true altruistic behavior.
The answer to why such altruistic behavior is necessary must be found in “rightness” itself. In other words, altruistic behavior performed without expecting any reward is carried out simply because it is moral, or “because it is the right thing to do.” For example, suppose a person witnesses a child falling onto the tracks on a subway platform and instinctively jumps onto the tracks to save the child, risking their own safety. They did not act out of concern for their reputation or fear of future guilt; they simply did what was “right” in that situation. Such choices are based on values inherent within human nature or socially accumulated moral intuition, and they possess their own inherent justification.
On the other hand, why should we avoid making selfish choices? It is not merely a matter of morality. Altruistic behavior is a mentally mature act that considers the well-being of others, and as social beings, humans have a duty to pursue mental growth. Selfish behavior stems from a narrow perspective that considers only oneself and can ultimately harm the community. In contrast, altruistic behavior is a mature way of life that looks beyond “me” to “us,” and this is precisely the moral duty we must uphold as human beings.
In conclusion, not free-riding in group activities is not simply a matter of grades or evaluations. It is an attitude that rejects selfish temptations and pursues the greater values of “rightness” and “spiritual maturity,” and it is the attitude toward life that we should all strive for. An altruistic life that considers the needs of others beyond one’s own comfort or benefit is the value essential for us to live together in a community, and this in itself is reason enough.
