This study reports the results of a randomised field experiment conducted by consultants for the non-governmental organisation La Benevolencija, which ten years after the genocide produced a year-long series of weekly radio programmes designed to promote reconciliation in Rwanda, where a war and genocide resulted in the deaths of more than 10% of the population and 75% of the Tutsi ethnic minority population over the course of 3 months in 1994. Ninety-nine percent of the research sample was in Rwanda at the start of 1994, and approximately 50% were displaced by the violence for a duration of one week to many months or a few years. Sixty-nine percent of the sample claimed that they lost relatives in 1994; 62% of the participants in general population villages, 100% of participants in survivor communities, and 68% of participants in Batwa communities. Sixty percent of general population participants reported material losses during the genocide, compared to 95% of participants in survivor communities, and 39% of Batwa participants.

For Rwandans, radios are relatively expensive to own and supply with batteries. As a result, they usually listen to the radio in groups. Therefore, the group randomised design is the most appropriate for this evaluation, in which communities are randomly assigned to the treatment, the reconciliation radio programme, or to the control, another entertainment-education radio programme on health. Two Rwandan research assistants visited each site every month and played that month’s four 20-minute episodes for the participants as a group. The participants gathered in a community space as they do on other occasions to listen to the radio. This system took place over the full year of broadcasting, the time period La Benevolencija was evaluating. At the close of the programme, researchers conducted individual interviews and focus groups with the participants, interviews with non-participating community members and with some children of participants, and also conducted a role play activity and a communal dilemma discussion with the participants.

Eighty-seven percent of Rwandans in the sample report that they listen to the radio; however 93% of men reported listening to the radio compared to 81% of women. Only 53% of the participants actually owned a radio; 83% of those who do not have a radio reported listening with family or friends, a practice that has been reported in many other studies on radio consumption in Rwanda. Only 10% of people who do not own a radio reported not listening to one.

In focus groups participants explored the issue of community trust. The discussion leader first posed the question, "Is there mistrust in your community?" The control group were much more likely to deny that there is any mistrust in their community 39% were unqualified denials of the existence of community mistrust, compared with 7% of comments in the reconciliation focus groups. Yet there were high levels of mistrust reported in individual interviews. This difference seems to indicate the reconciliation group’s willingness to speak out about difficult divisions in front of their community, even when this violates normative concerns about portraying Rwandans as "unified and reconciled" according to official government rhetoric. The control groups were significantly more likely to state that the source of mistrust is internal family conflicts about polygamy, infidelity, incest, and the partitioning of land (17% of all comments vs. 1% in the reconciliation group). Reconciliation focus groups also discussed family problems but emphasised other issues, especially problems of reconciliation, specifically people who do not ask for pardon, one-sided forgiveness, and insincere apologies.

Attitudes toward intermarriage between Hutus and Tutsis is seen as one indicator of tolerance for other tribes. 27 % of all comments in the reconciliation focus groups could be characterised as claiming that intermarriage can shift social norms and influence people, compared to 5.7% of all comments in the control group.

Do participants think they can rebuild trust in their communities? The majority of participants in both the reconciliation and the control group responded yes, but they envisioned this process in different ways. Group interaction (socialising, sharing resources, and generally engaging with people) was significantly more frequent among those in the reconciliation group (39% of responses compared to 13%). Reconciliation programme groups were also more likely to bring up the reconciliation process: the importance of mutual forgiveness, of asking pardon, and truth telling about the past as a way toward trust building (48% vs 25%). The health groups were more likely to mention the need for government policies: "sensitisation" (a common Rwandan term for governmental campaigns), and policies that prohibit "divisionism" or political favoritism (28% vs. 4%).

One of the research methodologies was to have participants act out and react to confrontations in the community, playing the role of the bystander. Those who had listened to the reconciliation programme were far more likely to act out scenes where the bystander intervened, and where bystanders who do nothing are somehow punished. Bystanders in the control group were more likely to seek help from authorities rather than intervene directly. One suggestive trend among the male role-plays was the presence of restorative justice in the reconciliation groups and not in the control groups. In half of the four treatment groups, the participants ordered the attackers to treat the wounds of their victim or to pay for his hospital bills, whereas none of the control groups suggested this type of justice for the victim.

La Benevolencija observed discussions that ensued about how to share the radio cassette stereo and set of 14 cassettes (containing the entire year’s worth of reconciliation radio shows) that were presented to each research group at the end of the final day of the data collection. La Benevolencija's researchers noted that the reconciliation group discussions seemed livelier and the issue of stereo management more contested; at the same time, researchers observed that the reconciliation groups spoke very positively about their ultimate ability to collectively manage stereo use. A different pattern emerged within many of the control programme groups: quite frequently, the first suggestion raised was to hand over the stereo and cassettes to the local authority, who would regulate usage and financial contributions for the battery supply. Following that suggestion, the motion would be supported by the group, and the matter would be closed.

To measure whether participants raised and discussed a diversity of opinions about how to handle this communal good, researchers counted the number of suggestions raised, and the overall number of comments given. A combined index of these two measures revealed a statistical difference between the reconciliation and control discussions, meaning that reconciliation groups discussed this communal dilemma longer, and debated more viewpoints on how to share it.