 |
|
| FORUM | REGISTER | LOGIN | HOAXIPEDIA | TOP 100 APRIL FOOLS | COLLEGE PRANKS | CONTACT |
| A HISTORY OF HOAXES | HOAX WEBSITES | HOAX PHOTOS | HOAX PHOTO TESTS | GULLIBILITY TESTS | TALL-TALE CREATURES |
  |
"Very well-researched and delivered in an engaging, breezy, wink-wink tone similar to that of Mark Leyner and Billy Goldberg's Why Do Men Have Nipples?, this will likely be enjoyed equally by science buffs and casual aficionados of the curious. One of the finest science/history bathroom books of all time." -Kirkus Reviews |
#19: Shock the Puppy
When Stanley Milgram published the results of his obedience experiment in 1963, it sent shockwaves through the scientific community. Other researchers found it hard to believe that people could be so easily manipulated, and they searched for any mistakes Milgram might have made. Charles Sheridan and Richard King theorized that perhaps Milgram's subjects had merely played along with the experiment because they realized the victim was faking his cries of pain. To test this possibility, Sheridan and King decided to repeat Milgram's experiment, introducing one significant difference. Instead of using an actor, they would use an actual victim who would really get shocked. Obviously they couldn't use a human for this purpose, so they used the next best thing — a cute, fluffy puppy.
Sheridan and King told their subjects — volunteers from an undergraduate psychology course — that the puppy was being trained to distinguish between a flickering and a steady light. It had to stand either to the right or the left depending on the cue from the light. If the animal failed to stand in the correct place, the subjects had to press a switch to shock it. As in the Milgram experiment, the shock level increased 15 volts for every wrong answer. But unlike the Milgram experiment, the puppy really was getting zapped.
As the voltage increased, the puppy first barked, then jumped up and down, and finally started howling with pain. The volunteers were horrified. They paced back and forth, hyperventilated, and gestured with their hands to show the puppy where to stand. Many openly wept. Yet the majority of them, twenty out of twenty-six, kept pushing the shock button right up to the maximum voltage.
Intriguingly, the six students who refused to go on were all men. All thirteen women who participated in the experiment obeyed right up until the end.
Sheridan and King told their subjects — volunteers from an undergraduate psychology course — that the puppy was being trained to distinguish between a flickering and a steady light. It had to stand either to the right or the left depending on the cue from the light. If the animal failed to stand in the correct place, the subjects had to press a switch to shock it. As in the Milgram experiment, the shock level increased 15 volts for every wrong answer. But unlike the Milgram experiment, the puppy really was getting zapped.
As the voltage increased, the puppy first barked, then jumped up and down, and finally started howling with pain. The volunteers were horrified. They paced back and forth, hyperventilated, and gestured with their hands to show the puppy where to stand. Many openly wept. Yet the majority of them, twenty out of twenty-six, kept pushing the shock button right up to the maximum voltage.
Intriguingly, the six students who refused to go on were all men. All thirteen women who participated in the experiment obeyed right up until the end.
Comments
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 3 of 3 pages < 1 2 3
We're not supposed to torture puppies?!?
Posted by Charles Manson on Fri Jul 11, 2008 at 11:36 AM
Actually, this experiment was replicated (with modifications) in 2006 and the only difference was that men obeyed more often than they did in the original experiment. There was little difference between the obedience rate of the men and women.
Posted by Rachel on Wed Sep 17, 2008 at 03:55 PM
ALL RIGHT, FINALLY I'VE FOUND A PLACE TO COMMENT ON THIS! Ever since I first heard of this SICK and TWISTED animal TORTURE, I've wanted to know whats going on! IS THERE SOMETHING ABOUT THIS EXPERIMENT THAT I AM NOT UNDERSTANDING!!!! CHARLES SHERIDAN and RICHARD KING set up an experiment that TORTURED a PUPPY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The last time I checked, Animal Cruelty was illegal in the United States, and anyone who did so was a sick bastard who deserved to DIE. WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE! and why am I the only one who commented about this! PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS! I want to know how this was allowed to happen. It's disturbing and wrong, and I'm not just talking about the people who participated, WHY AREN'T CHARLES SHERIDAN AND RICHARD KING IN PRISON RIGHT NOW!
Posted by Luke on Sat Jan 17, 2009 at 12:27 AM
they are dead
Posted by tad on Tue Jan 20, 2009 at 07:18 AM
Why are they doing this?
That's just cruel.
Posted by ihatehunters on Fri Mar 06, 2009 at 09:32 AM
I think its kinda funny. Besides its only a puppy. You can just go to the pet store and buy another. And for the people who hate this remember! Its for science! lol XD
Posted by Tucker on Thu Apr 23, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Does anyone know where this experiment by Charles Sheridan and Richard King took place? Which university? I can find no supporting reference for it. The experiment would surely be outlawed today. Also, are we expected to believe that a single animal was subjected to distressing shocks 26 times? If the animals changed, the experiment would be flawed from the outset; if a single animal learned that "weak" shocks were followed by more severe shocks this would undermine the experiment as it progressed. Sounds like a science myth to me....
Posted by Roger Goode on Mon May 18, 2009 at 03:34 AM
haha i wish i was there 2 do it lol xx
Posted by zoe dunkley on Mon Sep 07, 2009 at 08:12 AM
I am not convinced that this experiment was actually carried out. From what I can gleem this was a hoax as I have never been able to read the original article.
Posted by Rennet on Wed Oct 07, 2009 at 05:59 PM
Sorry just read it and Alex'x description of the study is very accurate. By the way Alex never said the puppies were killed and they weren't.
Posted by Rennet on Sat Oct 17, 2009 at 12:10 PM
oh my god, grow up yes ok they tortured puppies but it was for science not for no reason at all. you people saying it is sick, evidently you need to start to identify with the scientific side of this. Im 17 and even i, although i have a dog and love animals can appreciate the experiment that is behind this. I wouldn't personally do it and neither would i want to watch it alike i did the milgram one.Just open your minds your saying people are stupid for not understanding certain things but not understanding nor appreciating the science behind this makes you stupid too.
Posted by PsychologyPsycho on Mon Nov 23, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Alright. For all the people who are saying that the 15 women who continued this are inferior to men cause they are more heartless and are stupid. Women are more likely to obey a male as it is a genetic predisposition from the time of CAVE MEN!!!!!! I'm a girl myself and I find it rather offensive that comments like :
"Once again, women < Men."
Posted by Johnny on Thu Aug 30, 2007 at 10:59 AM
Come up in the discussion. It's sickening. The study was done on a purely scientific basis and although I do not agree with the use of animals. This article fails to mention that the puppies were put under an anesthetic and the collars were turned off after the anesthetic took effect.
Before you make judgments on ONE article take the time to do your own research!!!!!!
btw, my friend (dree) says johnny is a massive troll.
Posted by Jordy and Dree on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:29 PM
The experiment was in fact carried out, in the late 60s to early 70s. The were no animal cruelty laws at the time, nor was the ethics comittee in place, as it was founded years later as a result of the Tuskegee experiments coming to light. They used a few puppies, but one thing to remember is that current, not voltage, is what makes electrocution deadly- increasing the voltage does make it slightly more uncomfortable, but it is the rate at which the voltage flows that is the real problem- the two made sure the current level they used was not lethal. That being said, "not lethal" is quite different from "harmless" and it was still horribly unethical by today's standards. Also, the small subject base means you cannot generalize it well. Finally, it has been about 40 years since this occured. People do not look on scientists as highly now as they did then, partially due to people like Sheridan and King, partially due to villainization by media. It is doubtful that people would get the same sort of results today
Posted by Andrew on Mon May 30, 2011 at 02:48 PM
I think review boards have been in place since the mid Sixties in the United Sates, but I take your point Andrew.
However,"was in fact carried out, in the late 60s to early 70s" doesn't quite nail it down. Nor does "used a few puppies". A paper must have been published somewhere and, until it turns up, the experiment remains an unrepeatable riddle wrapped in an electric enigma.
Posted by Roger Goode on Tue May 31, 2011 at 07:55 AM
Well that is disturbing. But if their excuse, "we pushed the button for science" is not good enough of and excuse, neither is the fact that the scientists allowed this to happen to puppies... for science!
Posted by JJ on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 06:57 PM
QUOTE oh my god, grow up yes ok they tortured puppies but it was for science not for no reason at all. you people saying it is sick, evidently you need to start to identify with the scientific side of this. Im 17 and even i, although i have a dog and love animals can appreciate the experiment that is behind this. I wouldn't personally do it and neither would i want to watch it alike i did the milgram one.Just open your minds your saying people are stupid for not understanding certain things but not understanding nor appreciating the science behind this makes you stupid too. UNQUOTE
Kid, are you saying this is wrong, but ok for science? Or are you saying it only wrong for YOU to do... or what? Are you saying its okay to understand the purpose, or its okay not to agree with it? Maybe you are the one confused, you sound like a married man who values only having sex with your spouse, then going out to cheat on weekends!@!@!@!@!@@!@@@@@@@@@@@@@@!!!!!!!fucken child
Posted by JJ on Wed Aug 03, 2011 at 07:10 PM
Page 3 of 3 pages < 1 2 3