At a seminar, the economist Binmore noted this as a problem - every psychological study from Milgram on has been a trick, and so subjects (undergraduates) are alert to this. He just wanted to study how markets / prices could form, if memory serves, but he could see students reading the instructions and trying to figure out where the trick was.

Psych studies have to inform participants of the purpose of the test and debrief them if they want to survive ethics review.

This can be a challenge, but does lead to many interesting workarounds.

The original change blindness / door experiment conducted outside a lab setting didn’t get permission from participants before enacting the test.

This had to be corrected, and subsequent tests needed participants to sign off before they could participate. If you know the experiment, you would assume that being informed of the experiment would not be conducive to the test.

The researchers found a way to still create a workable experiment. Volunteers would be able to go to a kiosk to sign up. If they signed the release (? forget the name) form the kiosk attendant would duck down out of line of sight for a second to pick something up, and would be replaced by the accomplice.

They would then direct the volunteer to the debriefing room.

> Surely after the first time being misled by someone in a lab coat you'll be more skeptical the next time?

No, because facts won't change their mind.

I don't believe or value political polling in the same vein