What’s the best way to prevent free riding in groups?

This article analyses the causes of free riding in groups and suggests regular communication between members as a solution. It explains how various experiments have shown that retaliatory measures, such as fines, are not effective in preventing free-riding, but rather how dialogue can increase trust and foster altruistic behaviour through a stronger sense of community.

 

Activities where people work together to solve a problem, such as group work, face a number of challenges. The main causes of difficulties in group work are poor role division due to miscommunication or conflict among group members, and members not fulfilling their assigned roles. Poor communication can cause problems from the very beginning of the task. If roles are not clearly defined or schedules are not properly coordinated, group members can become confused. Not only does this slow down progress, but it also increases the likelihood of unnecessary conflict. When members don’t do their part, or ‘free riding,’ it’s often due to a lack of accountability. It takes a certain amount of effort to produce the results a group is supposed to produce. However, the more unselfish behaviour such as free-riding occurs in a group activity, the more the amount of work assigned to the responsible members increases, which puts a lot of pressure on the conscientious few.
If a small number of responsible members in a group activity are repeatedly asked to handle a large amount of work, the psychological pressure on them will gradually increase. This can lead to a decrease in the quality of the work, and relationships between members can deteriorate. It is ironic that those who complete a task are judged as one and the same as those who have a ‘meh’ attitude. To prevent this unfairness from happening, many groups have systems in place to discourage free riding. Retaliatory methods of deterring free-riding include removing the free-rider from the team roster altogether or attaching a peer review sheet to the deliverable, but we believe these are not the best methods as they have the side effect of making your fellow members feel like they are being watched and potential free-riders. While these methods may work in the short term, they run the risk of eroding trust and teamwork among members.
I think the best way to prevent free-riding is through regular communication between members. This approach is based on mutual trust, and the key is to hold each member accountable. When you share your thoughts and progress through regular dialogue, you naturally hold each other accountable, reducing the likelihood of free riding. The power of communication is greater than you might think, and it’s been proven in many different groups.
How can you prevent free-riders by simply communicating with each other? Building consensus through dialogue is more than just exchanging opinions; it’s a process of understanding and adjusting to each other’s positions. People communicate with other people through dialogue, and diplomacy, the foreign relations between countries, is also a form of communication. As communication plays an important role in almost every sector of the world, it can also be used to prevent free-riders. In the corporate world, for example, there are many studies that show that good communication within a team has a direct impact on job performance. These examples show how important communication is to the success of an organisation.
Communication hypotheses include the hypothesis that members of a society come to understand what behaviours are socially desirable through communication, and the hypothesis that members feel obligated to engage in socially beneficial behaviours. Also included in the communication hypothesis are the hypotheses that communication increases trust among members and that it creates a sense of collective responsibility among members. Trust and accountability are important factors that form the basis of effective collaboration. When these factors are in place, conflicts between members are reduced and tasks can be accomplished more efficiently.
The Commons Game experiment, which validates the communication hypothesis, suggests that if members have sufficient opportunities to communicate, they can prevent the tragedy of the commons from occurring. The tragedy of the commons is when members of a community use a shared resource more than they should, causing the shared resource to diminish or deplete to the detriment of all members. The experiment consists of four experiments that introduce retaliatory measures, communication between members, and other factors to prevent the tragedy of the commons. We conducted four experiments: Experiment 1, in which we introduced a retaliatory penalty system, Experiment 2, in which we only tried to introduce it, Experiment 3, in which we added one-time communication between members, and Experiment 4, in which we added regular communication.
The results showed that in Experiments 2 and 3, public good use decreased only immediately after the introduction of fines and communication, respectively, and over time, members’ public good use returned to its previous level. In contrast, in Experiments 1 and 4, public good use decreased and remained at that level. These experiments show that regular communication can induce and sustain altruistic behaviour. While introducing a penalty system is just as effective as communication, factors such as the resistance that the idea of retaliation creates among members suggest that increasing communication among members is more effective than other measures in terms of group cohesion and trust among participants.
The results of these experiments can be applied to a wide range of organisations. From small organisations like companies and clubs to national policies, communication is crucial. Without regular meetings and consultations, conflicts between members are inevitable.
The results of effective communication can be applied to how to prevent free-riding in group activities. If regular communication is introduced in groups as a way of reducing free-riders, the outcomes of the communication hypothesis may occur, such as members feeling obliged to act in the best interest of the group, increased trust between members, and a sense of community among members, resulting in all members acting altruistically and eliminating free-riders from the group.
Thus, we can see that the communication hypothesis can be used effectively to deter free riders. The idea of stopping free riders is to avoid harming others. However, this is not the only reason to avoid free riding. In addition to protecting others, there are also reasons not to do it for yourself. The reason why you shouldn’t free ride is related to the broader question of why you should live right.