Team debriefings are structured interventions in which teams reflect on their past performance, adapt, and plan for future events. Results from meta-analyses indicate that team debriefings are effective in improving task performance (Keiser & Arthur, Journal of Applied Psychology, 106(7), 1007–1032, 2021, Journal of Business and Psychology, 37(5), 953–976, 2022; Tannenbaum & Cerasoli, Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 55(1), 231–245, 2013). Although far less often studied, there is also some evidence to suggest that team debriefings (compared to no debriefings) can be used to develop norms for open communication (Jarrett et al., Human Performance, 29(5), 408-427, 2016; Villado & Arthur, Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(3), 514-528, 2013). However, there is currently a dearth of quantitative evidence to guide practitioners in selecting from the myriad methods available to achieve this purpose. Grounded in theory and research on episodic models of team performance (Marks et al., Academy of Management Review, 26(3), 356-376, 2001) and the Motivated Information Processing in Groups model (MIP-G) (De Dreu et al., Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 22–49, 2008), we conducted a quasi-experiment which compared two debriefing methods. The first, a chronological debriefing, emphasizes outcome accountability and makes competitive interdependence salient, whereas the second method, Team Dimensional Training (TDT), emphasizes process accountability and makes cooperative interdependence salient. Data from 76 flight controllers at Johnson Space Center indicated that the communication climate in TDT debriefings was perceived to be more open than was the climate in chronological debriefings. Analyses of coded transcripts from 69 debriefings revealed that teams engaged in deeper reflexivity when the TDT method was used than they did when the chronological method was used.