Deference, Dissent, and Dispute Resolution: An Experimental Intervention Using Mass Media to Change Norms and Behavior in Rwanda
Abstract
Deference and dissent strike a delicate balance in any polity. Insufficient deference to authority may incapacitate government, whereas too much may allow leaders to orchestrate mass violence. Although cross-national and cross-temporal variation in deference to authority and willingness to express dissent has long been studied in political science, rarely have scholars studied programs designed to change these aspects of political culture. This study, situated in post-genocide Rwanda, reports a qualitative and quantitative assessment of one such attempt, a radio program aimed at discouraging blind obedience and reliance on direction from authorities and promoting independent thought and collective action in problem solving. Over the course of one year, this radio program or a comparable program dealing with HIV was randomly presented to pairs of communities, including communities of genocide survivors, Twa people, and imprisoned génocidaires. Changes in individual attitudes, perceived community norms, and deliberative behaviors were assessed using closed-ended interviews, focus group discussions, role-play exercises, and unobtrusive measures of collective decision making. Although the radio program had little effect on many kinds of beliefs and attitudes, it had a substantial impact on listeners' willingness to express dissent and the ways they resolved communal problems.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In Rwanda, a radio drama treatment changed listeners' perceptions of social norms and their behaviors in domains including intermarriage, open dissent, trust, empathy, cooperation, and trauma healing, compared with a control group.
“Compared with listeners in the control group, treatment group listeners’ perceptions of social norms and their behaviors changed in a range of domains: intermarriage, open dissent, trust, empathy, cooperation, and trauma healing.”
From Stories in Action. (2022) · cites this paper as Paluck & Green, 2009
The Rwandan radio drama treatment did not appear to change listeners' personal beliefs with respect to intergroup violence.
“Despite this, the treatment did not appear to change listeners’ personal beliefs with respect to intergroup violence.”
From Stories in Action. (2022) · cites this paper as Paluck & Green, 2009
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 100 · Cited by 343
- Authors
- PALUCK, E. L., & GREEN, D. P.
- Affiliations
- Princeton University (US)
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- PALUCK, ELIZABETH LEVY
- GREEN, DONALD P.
- Venue
- American Political Science Review
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2009-10-14
- Volume
- 103
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 622-644
- ISSN
- 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5943
- OpenAlex
- W2113212369
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 100
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 58 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 27.91
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Political Conflict and Governance
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- deference to authority, dissent, radio programming, mass media interventions, political culture change, post-genocide Rwanda, genocide survivors, group decision making, community norms
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review