In the name of science

That's cuz they probably knew that the unstable would break down faster and the test was designed to be a length that even for the resolute, the length didn't happen.

There's some controversy on Zimbardo's experiment on what the purpose of the experiment was other than to harass it's subjects.

Anyways, let's say you're an experimenter. Why would you deviate from the sample that most accurately represents the population other than to keep your experiment alive (which in most cases, won't be necessary)?

What do you think my poll results would be if I had told the users the purpose of my experiment?

Yes, quite frankly. A human life is quite precious. That's the sole and strong reason for my argument.

And of course your results in your experiment would have been different. However, telling the users the purpose and telling the users the consequences are two entirely different things. They are not the same thing.