Can Game Theory Solve the Group Stage Free Ride? What are the necessities and limits of right behavior?

We discuss the necessity and limits of righteous behavior, using TFT strategies from game theory to prevent free riding in group work.

 

The end of the semester is just around the corner. At the end of every semester, students are faced with numerous exams, reports, and ‘group work’. There’s always a challenge in group work, where the goal is to collaborate with each other and achieve +A results. It’s a free ride. This is a phenomenon that occurs in most group tasks, and various compromises have been proposed to address it. However, the result is the individualization of the group, which is a far cry from the idealistic tenets of the group, which is to create maximum output through mutual cooperation. In this article, we’ll talk about the causes of free riding and how to stop it using game theory.
Let’s start with a simple example. The famous anecdote known as the Prisoner’s Dilemma tells the story of two prisoners. They were arrested, and the detective said to each of them “If you and your companion both keep quiet, you will both be sentenced to one year in prison; if only one confesses, the one who confesses will be released and the other will be sentenced to ten years in prison, but if both confess, they will both be sentenced to five years in prison.” If they have faith in each other, it’s in their interest not to confess. But if there’s no guarantee that the other won’t tell, it’s in their best interest to confess. And most people who are asked this question actually choose to confess. The basic idea is that people will prioritize their self-interest when making a choice. Based on this, let’s think about why people free ride.
The most basic reason for free riding is that it allows people to benefit without participating in the group task. When people take a certain action, they expect to get some benefit from it. In a group task, instead of one person working on a task, many people work on a single deliverable. In other words, the more people working on a task, the less work a single person has to do and the more profit they can get from the output. This makes free riding the best economic choice.
Another reason is the individual’s lack of ability. A person may be willing to participate in a group task, but their skills are not at the level required to fulfill the task, and they are forced to take a free ride. However, this is an outcome independent of individual choice and is not considered in this report when discussing how to prevent free riding.
Now, let’s discuss how to prevent free riding in group work. What makes group work different from the Prisoner’s Dilemma situation is that in group work, participants know each other’s decisions. This means that they can react to each other’s decisions immediately and retaliate later. The solution we present here is based on a Tit For Tat (TFT) strategy in an iterative-reciprocal situation. In an iterative-reciprocal situation, each party repeats a sequence of actions face-to-face, knowing the outcome of the other party’s choices in the previous step.
In 1984, Robert Axelrod, a professor of political science at the University of Michigan, conspired to determine which strategy would yield the highest payoff in a prisoner’s dilemma game. The Prisoner’s Dilemma game is a recursive and reciprocal game in which the opponent’s previous decisions are known, a situation described above. The winning strategy was the TFT strategy, which literally means “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. The TFT strategy works best in situations with repetition and reciprocity.
Now, let’s apply this strategy to group work. In order to apply it in groups, we need to create situations that are repetitive and reciprocal. Most current group assignments consist of a single midterm presentation and a final submission. Therefore, when organizing a group assignment, you can create a reciprocal situation by providing multiple interim presentations or submission periods before the final submission. The most effective way to retaliate against free riding is to limit the benefit, which is the reason for free riding, so at each stage, you can list the names of the free riders or remove them from the roster, so that they know that if they continue to free ride, they will not be guaranteed a benefit.
So far, we’ve discussed the causes of free riding and solutions based on game theory. We can say that free riding is the result of “selfish” choices made by people who want to maximize their profits with minimal effort. We suggested that the most efficient way to prevent this selfishness is to force them to realize that they cannot get the benefits they want, so that they stop free riding and actively participate in the group tasks.
But here we can ask a question. We naturally seek benefits in our lives. What drives individuals to do right in life is the expectation that doing the right thing will benefit them, whether materially or spiritually. Indeed, we find comfort in doing the socially acceptable “right” thing by helping others or not doing something dishonest, such as taking a free ride, or breaking the law. Also, from a social perspective, the good of society is maximized when the majority chooses the right thing. In both the long and short term, the right behavior provides benefits to the individual. And the pursuit of these benefits ultimately leads to the pursuit of the value of happiness.
Here’s an example. It has long been debated whether an altruistic act, such as donating or volunteering, is altruistic and right if the individual benefits from it. However, we cannot completely exclude values such as the mental rewards that an individual receives from performing an altruistic act. If we define an altruistic act as an act that is done solely for the sake of others, completely excluding personal material benefits, as well as mental rewards and benefits, then it would be hypocrisy to do something you don’t want to do in order to be “altruistic”. After all, altruistic behavior is directly related to personal satisfaction and spiritual benefit. In other words, we act for the sake of happiness, which is one of the absolute values of life. And happiness usually comes from maximizing the benefits of living right.
However, this doesn’t mean that individuals are always compelled to do the right thing. Consider an example. There was a case where a Japanese international student, Lee Soo-hyun, lost his life after saving a child who fell on the subway tracks. Mr. Lee’s action of saving the child was the right thing to do. However, it cost him his life. Human beings pursue profit, and profit is a means to an end, which is happiness. In the end, living the right life is also a means for individuals to achieve happiness. However, if you give up your life to live the right life, it is a clear subversion of purpose. If you are not alive, it is impossible to pursue happiness anymore. This is to say that rightness cannot be an absolute value to be pursued.
In life, we are faced with many choices, which can be as trivial as “what should I have for dinner tonight” or as complex as “should I cross that red light” or as moral judgments such as “should I help that person right now”. We make judgments based on many values. However, our judgment is based on our personal stability, interests, morals, and ultimately happiness. In other words, being right is just one of many additional values that are considered when making a judgment, and if this additional value threatens the final value, we don’t necessarily have to make a risky choice.