No, it was not properly referenced in the article. I had previously seen the study.
From the supplementary material:
> All participants delivered the shock to themselves in this first part of the study. Thus, in
Part 2 of the study, when people had the opportunity to shock themselves again, everyone knew
what the shock entailed and how painful it was.
They also asked the participants to rate the experience from the sock in a 1-10 scale (negative to positive) and removed all participants who didn't find the shock as a negative experience.
The grade the remaining participants gave to the shock experience was in the lowest part of the scale, which makes it even more insane:
From the supplementary material:
> All participants delivered the shock to themselves in this first part of the study. Thus, in Part 2 of the study, when people had the opportunity to shock themselves again, everyone knew what the shock entailed and how painful it was.
They also asked the participants to rate the experience from the sock in a 1-10 scale (negative to positive) and removed all participants who didn't find the shock as a negative experience.
The grade the remaining participants gave to the shock experience was in the lowest part of the scale, which makes it even more insane:
> ratings of the shock, t(52) = 1.40, p = .167