In this blog post, we will look at the importance and effectiveness of communication as a realistic solution to prevent free-riding in group assignments.
Activities in which members of a group work together to solve a task face many challenges. The main reasons why group assignments are difficult are the lack of communication among group members or conflicts that prevent them from dividing up the roles properly, and the members not properly performing their respective roles. In particular, the lack of communication can cause problems from the early stages of the project. If the roles of each member are not clearly defined or the schedule is not properly coordinated, the group members may be confused. This not only slows down the work, but also increases the likelihood of causing unnecessary conflict. The act of members not performing their respective roles well, or “free-riding,” is mainly caused by a lack of a sense of responsibility. It takes a certain amount of effort to achieve the results that a team needs to produce. However, the more selfish acts such as “free-riding” occur in group work, the more tasks are assigned to responsible members of the group, which results in a few diligent members bearing the brunt.
When the situation repeats in which a few responsible members of the group have to handle a large amount of tasks, the psychological burden on those members gradually increases. This can lead to a decline in the quality of the task and a deterioration in the relationships between members. It is ironic that those who finish a given task and those who take advantage of the system by riding the system without doing any work are evaluated as one. To prevent this kind of unfair treatment, various groups have systems in place to prevent free-riding. There are retaliatory methods to prevent free-riding, such as excluding the team member from the team roster when they engage in free-riding or attaching a peer evaluation form when submitting the deliverables, but these methods are not considered the best because they have side effects such as making the same members be regarded as targets of surveillance or potential free-riders. These methods may be effective in the short term, but there is a risk of reducing trust and teamwork among members.
I think the best way to prevent free-riding is to have regular communication among members. This method is based on mutual trust, and the key is to encourage each member to take responsibility for themselves. When you share your thoughts and progress through regular conversations, you will naturally feel responsible for each other, reducing the possibility of free-riding. The power of communication is greater than you might think, and this has already been confirmed in various groups.
How can we prevent free riders from forming through communication between members? Leading a discussion to reach an agreement is a process of understanding and adjusting each other’s positions, which is more than just an exchange of opinions. People communicate with others through conversations. Also, diplomacy, which is the external relations between countries, is a type of communication. As communication plays an important role in almost all areas of the world, the method of dialogue can also be used to prevent free-riding. For example, there are many studies that show that the smoothness of communication within a team directly affects the performance of a company. These examples show how important communication is to the success of an organization.
The “communication hypothesis” includes the hypothesis that members of society understand what behaviors are socially desirable through communication, and the hypothesis that members feel an obligation to behave in a socially helpful way. The communication hypothesis also includes the hypothesis that trust between members increases and the hypothesis that a sense of group identity among members increases their sense of responsibility. Trust and responsibility are important elements that form the basis of effective cooperation. When these elements are in place, conflicts between members are reduced and tasks can be carried out more efficiently.
According to the commons game experiment, which confirmed the validity of the communication hypothesis, if members have sufficient opportunities for communication, the tragedy of the commons can be prevented. The tragedy of the commons is a phenomenon in which members of a community use shared resources beyond the acceptable limit, causing the resources to decrease or run out, and all members suffer. This experiment consists of four experiments that introduce elements such as retaliatory measures and communication among members to prevent the tragedy of the commons. A total of four experiments were conducted: Experiment 1, which introduced a penalty system as a retaliatory measure; Experiment 2, which attempted to introduce a penalty system but did not; Experiment 3, which added one-time communication between members; and Experiment 4, which added regular communication.
As a result, in Experiments 2 and 3, the amount of public goods used decreased only immediately after the introduction of the penalty system and immediately after communication, respectively, and the amount of public goods used by members returned to the previous level over time. In contrast, in Experiments 1 and 4, the amount of public goods used decreased and remained at that level. Through the experiment, we were able to confirm that regular communication leads to altruistic behavior and that this behavior can be maintained. Introducing a penalty system is as effective as communication, but considering the elements such as the rejection that the introduction of a retaliatory system causes among members, it can be seen that increasing communication among members is more effective than other measures in terms of harmony among members and trust among participants.
The results of such experiments can be applied to various organizations. The importance of communication is great in policies at the national level as well as in small organizations such as companies and clubs. If regular meetings and consultations are not conducted smoothly, conflicts between members are inevitable.
The results of effective communication can be introduced to group activities to prevent free-riding. If periodic communication is introduced in group activities as a way to reduce free riders, members will feel obligated to take actions that are beneficial to the group, which will increase trust among members and lead to the emergence of a sense of group identity among members. As a result, all members will act altruistically, and the effect of eliminating free riders in group assignments will be achieved.
As such, we can see that the communication hypothesis can be effectively used to prevent free-riders. Preventing free-riding is about not causing harm to others. However, this is not the only reason why we should not free-ride. There are also reasons why we should not free-ride not only for others but also for ourselves. Why we should not take free rides is related to why we should live correctly in a broader sense.
