In this blog post, we explore the role of individual assessment and group leaders in preventing free-riding in university group projects and propose effective solutions.
Throughout college, students inevitably participate in group projects. Through repeated experiences with these projects, students come to understand firsthand why communism has failed in the real world. When a group gathers to work on an assignment and all members receive the same grade based on the group’s final output, individuals may think, “Even if I don’t put in much effort, someone else will make up for it.” This leads to the free-riding phenomenon, where those who do not participate diligently receive good grades while others work hard to produce quality results. Such situations ultimately undermine the purpose of group work, and the selfish behavior of individuals ends up harming the entire team.
In fact, group work in college is not aimed solely at academic achievement. Through this process, students cultivate teamwork, a sense of responsibility, and communication skills—all essential for life in society. These experiences will be of great help when they face similar challenges in the workplace or within the broader community later on. Therefore, the success of group work holds significance far beyond mere grades.
In this article, I will propose strategies to prevent free-riding and facilitate optimal group work by utilizing the hypothesis presented in *The Emergence of the Altruistic Human*, and further argue for the reasons why we should live virtuously.
First, to prevent free-riding, individual assessments must be conducted in addition to assigning the same grade to the entire group. Without individual assessments, students may be tempted to free-ride because they receive a grade based on the group’s output regardless of their personal contribution. Therefore, including individual assessments can prevent free-riding in the first place, and individuals will actively participate in group activities to perform well on their individual evaluations. The “costly signaling hypothesis,” introduced in *The Emergence of Altruistic Humans*, explains that individuals engage in altruistic behavior within a group as a signal to demonstrate their capabilities and thereby receive corresponding rewards. Accordingly, group members will participate in activities to increase their contribution and receive higher individual evaluations as a result.
The task now is to determine “how to conduct individual evaluations.” Unless the contributions are quantifiable—such as the number of bricks carried—the extent and importance of each member’s contribution to group activities vary, and it is difficult to express these accurately on a scale. Ideally, the professor assigning the final grades would observe and judge all activities, but realistically, the professor cannot participate in and observe every activity performed by each group. Therefore, the professor needs a proxy to observe the group members on their behalf, and this can be achieved through the group leader.
Now, let’s consider what role to assign to the group leader. First, even if the group leader is simply tasked with observing and evaluating the members, there is still a possibility that the group leader might free-ride. Therefore, the professor grades the group leader based on the group’s overall output. This approach ensures that the group leader will guide the group toward the best possible results and, naturally, participate actively, thereby eliminating any incentive for the group leader to free-ride.
The role of the group leader in group activities is extremely important. The group leader is not merely the group’s representative but bears the responsibility of evaluating the group’s performance and each member’s contribution. To maximize the group’s performance, the group leader must demonstrate leadership by guiding members, identifying each member’s strengths, and assigning appropriate tasks. Furthermore, under the group leader’s guidance, members fulfill their respective roles and responsibilities, enabling the team to achieve the best possible results through teamwork. In this structure, the likelihood of free-riding naturally decreases, and the objectives of group activities can be achieved.
Now, group members may be motivated to free-ride, assuming that the group leader will do the hard work. This can be addressed by having the professor assign a total score to the group’s output, which the group leader then distributes among members based on their individual contributions. Consequently, each member will participate more actively and work together to ensure the group receives a high total score. Furthermore, in line with the “costly signaling” hypothesis mentioned earlier, this approach can encourage altruistic and active participation as members strive to secure a larger share of the total points.
However, since the group leader might be biased or lack objectivity when distributing points, group members evaluate each other’s contributions, and the professor determines the final grade based on both the leader’s allocation and the peer evaluations. Similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, where two suspects face interrogation and their sentences are determined by whether they remain silent or confess, if the situation involves a one-time choice, individuals may benefit from making a selfish choice. However, the Repeated Reciprocity Hypothesis posits that in situations where choices are made repeatedly and individuals face each other, they will make altruistic choices toward one another. If peer evaluations take place after group activities have ended—when there is no further interaction between members—individuals will behave altruistically, and each member will actively participate in group activities rather than free-riding.
Finally, since there may be cases where a member receives a low evaluation due to interpersonal relationships despite having contributed significantly to the group activity, a remedy must be established to allow students to appeal the group leader’s scores and evaluations to the professor. This serves as a crucial mechanism to ensure that individual contributions are evaluated objectively and to prevent unfair situations from arising.
To fundamentally prevent the incentive for free-riding, individual scores are assigned rather than group scores, and aspects that the professor cannot realistically observe are addressed through the group leader to ensure objective evaluation. The group leader assigns scores based on the group’s performance, thereby eliminating the possibility of the leader engaging in free-riding and encouraging active participation and leadership. To prevent situations where the group leader works hard alone while other members free-ride, if the group leader is allowed to allocate the group’s total score to members based on their individual contributions, the other members will also lose the incentive to free-ride and will actively participate in activities to maximize the group’s total score. To ensure objective scoring that aligns with the professor’s intentions, group members conduct peer evaluations, and the professor determines the final score by comparing these with the leader’s assessment. Finally, to prevent contributions from being undervalued due to interpersonal dynamics, members are allowed to file appeals with the professor. This approach eliminates the incentive for free-riding among all members, including the leader. The group leader receives a high score only if the group performs well, and group members also receive higher individual scores only if the group’s total score is high. Therefore, since active participation is necessary to receive a good individual evaluation, an environment is created where all group members, including the leader, actively participate in group activities.
Group activities can also be viewed as a small society. However, because the duration is short, if one person acts selfishly—such as free-riding—while others behave altruistically, it becomes economically advantageous to do so, leading to a situation where not everyone actively participates in group activities. Therefore, by applying the methods and rules outlined above to create a cycle of repeated, reciprocal interactions, we can mitigate the constraint of a finite duration and foster an environment where everyone participates altruistically in group activities.
The society in which we actually live is far more complex and diverse. While there are situations involving consistent interaction, such as in workplaces or organizations, the duration of relationships varies widely—from brief encounters, like passing strangers on the street whom we never see again, to long-term connections. In cases where interaction persists over time, as in the former example, people naturally behave altruistically toward one another. This is because, in such situations, if one acts improperly and harms another, they may face retaliation from that person in the future.
