The main objective was to explore the influence of interviewer behavior-abrupt versus friendly-and the age of participants on interrogative suggestibility.

Design thinking (DT) emerged as a popular method of problem solving and idea generation in creative teams. However, despite the rapid increase in interest in DT as a practical tool, evidence for its effectiveness is rather scarce. Furthermore, neither the theory underlying the methods used in DT nor the definition of DT is coherent. As such, we have decided to introduce a new approach to DT by designing an evidence-based methodology and testing its efficacy among teams working on a specific task. In this article, we present the design thinking method (DTMethod), developed by an interdisciplinary team of practitioners and academics. We also present empirical evidence on the effectiveness of the DTMethod in the teamwork setting. In our study of 39 teams, we found that by using the DTMethod teams achieved more favorable results in terms of utility and meeting set requirements but not in terms of cost or time efficiency. We also found that individuals working according to the DTMethod reported experiencing less positive emotional states but were, overall, more satisfied with the experience and rated teamwork more favorably in terms of cohesiveness and team effort.

The accuracy of an eyewitness statement depends on the interviewing method used. Therefore, empirically tested interviewing techniques have been developed, in particular for vulnerable witnesses. Sometimes witnesses may not tell the truth based on personally experienced events but give testimony about events they have only heard about, thus lying about the event. In this experiment, 80 witnesses over 60 years old either saw a film or heard an audiotaped summary. They were interviewed either with a standard interview (SI) or an Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI). The ECI led to an increase in the amount of information gained without jeopardizing its accuracy compared to the SI. Trained coders evaluated transcripts of the interviews with Criteria-Based Content Analysis and judged the truthfulness of each account. Some differences in CBCA criteria were in the expected direction, others opposite to expectation, thus prohibiting the use of a summary score. Accounts from the SI group (80%) were judged correctly significantly more often than accounts from the ECI group (40%). Only 15% of the lies in the ECI group were judged correctly vs. 80% in the SI group. Findings are discussed regarding the importance of testing interview techniques with respect to their potential to detect deception.