Healing, reconciliation, forgiving and the prevention of violence after genocide or mass killing: an intervention and its experimental evaluation in Rwanda
Abstract
This article describes a theory–based intervention in Rwanda to promote healing and reconciliation, and an experimental evaluation of its effects. The concept of reconciliation and conditions required for reconciliation after genocide or other intense intergroup violence are discussed, with a focus on healing. A training of facilitators who worked for local organizations that worked with groups of people in the community is described. The training consisted of psycho–educational lectures with extensive large group and small group discussion, as well as engagement by participants with their painful experiences during the genocide, with empathic support. The effects of the training were evaluated not on the participants, but on members of newly set up community groups they subsequently worked with. Two types of control groups were created: treatment controls, groups led by facilitators we did not train, using their traditional procedures, and a no treatment control group. We controlled for other variations in the type of groups the facilitators worked with (e.g. community building versus healing) by including them in all treatment conditions. Traumatic experiences, trauma symptoms, and orientation by participants to members of the other group were evaluated. The intervention was associated with reduced trauma symptoms and a more positive orientation toward members of the other group, both over time (from before the treatment to two months afterwards) and in comparison to control groups. Our observations suggest the importance and special meaning for people of understanding the origins of violence.
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 post-genocide Rwanda, trauma healing and reconciliation workshops led by trained workers improved PTSD symptoms and positive orientation to others compared with workshops led by untrained workers and no treatment.
“In a group approach76 to trauma healing and reconciliation in post-genocide Rwanda, workshops led by trained workers improved PTSD symptoms and positive orientation to others compared with both workshops led by untrained workers and no treatment.”
From Mental health and psychosocial support in humanitarian settings: linking practice and research (2011) · cites this paper as [76]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 56 · Cited by 305
- Authors
- Staub, E., Pearlman, L. A., Gubin, A., & Hagengimana, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
- University of Rwanda (RW)
- Venue
- Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology
- Publisher
- Guilford Publications
- Published
- 2005-05
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 297-334
- ISSN
- 0736-7236 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2117769295
- Cited by
- 305
- References
- 56
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 28 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 27.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Memory, violence, and history
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › War, Law, and Justice
- Keywords
- post-genocide reconciliation, healing, forgiveness, violence prevention, genocide survivors, trauma symptoms, intergroup relations, community organizations, facilitator training, psychoeducational intervention, Rwanda, empathic support
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