I'm really suspicious of that study, even if I mostly think it's emblematic of the real-world effect it's supposedly studying. Was the difference in rules/situa

I'm really suspicious of that study, even if I mostly think it's emblematic of the real-world effect it's supposedly studying. Was the difference in rules/situation communicated to the players? What exactly were they asked at the end of the game? I just find it hard to believe people would be that crass in what they know is an artificial environment where they know there are stark and obvious advantages. This feels like the Stanford Prison Experiment where the results are "too true to check".