It seems like the game is flawed in at least two ways:
1. Are there two players, or three? If the offer is refused, the researcher keeps the money. The researcher almost certainly doesn't care, but how the other participants perceive the role of the researcher is likely to influence their idea of fairness.
2. Is the money a gift from one participant to another, or are they dividing up a gift from the researcher? This difference will also trigger different responses, some of which may be related to fairness and some not.
Of course, any experiment might tell you something interesting. But trying to say this is a test for fairness is an oversimplification.
Comments
It seems like the game is flawed in at least two ways:
1. Are there two players, or three? If the offer is refused, the researcher keeps the money. The researcher almost certainly doesn't care, but how the other participants perceive the role of the researcher is likely to influence their idea of fairness.
2. Is the money a gift from one participant to another, or are they dividing up a gift from the researcher? This difference will also trigger different responses, some of which may be related to fairness and some not.
Of course, any experiment might tell you something interesting. But trying to say this is a test for fairness is an oversimplification.