Debriefing after deception is crucial in experimental research for ethical transparency, helping correct any misconceptions and restoring participants’ understanding of the study's purpose. However, while debriefing is generally effective in addressing deception, it may also lead to unintended consequences, such as increased skepticism and reduced trust in science. We propose that, by explicitly revealing the use of deception, debriefing may inadvertently lower participants' trust in scientists and decrease their willingness to participate in future studies. In this study, we will conduct various rounds of experiments to compare the effects of standard, enhanced, and no-debriefing conditions on trust in research and other relevant institutions as well as participant retention in multi-wave studies. This research aims to underscore both the positive corrective role of debriefing and its negative potential to increase skepticism and undermine trust, highlighting the need for tailored approaches that uphold ethical standards while preserving participant trust and engagement in academic research.