Chapter 13

The Psychology of Prayer:

A Review of Empirical Research

Tania ap Siôn and Leslie J. Francis

Abstract After years of comparative neglect, a renewed research interest developed

in the field of prayer during the mid-1980s and has led to prayer being recognized as
of central importance in understanding the role of religion and spirituality in human
development and human functioning. In the context of this developing research
agenda, the present chapter concentrates on three themes. The first theme focuses
on research concerned with the subjective effects of prayer, looking at the correlates
of prayer among those who engage in that activity. The second theme focuses on
research concerned with the objective effects of prayer, giving particular attention
to clinical trials of “prayer treatment”, examining the medical outcomes of patients
who do not know that they are being prayed for. The third theme focuses on the
content of prayer as a window through which to view the religion and spirituality of
ordinary people.

Introduction

From a theological perspective prayer is both an important and a problematic aspect

of the Christian tradition (Le Fevre, 1981). Biblical theologians discuss the place
and significance of prayer within the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments
(MacLachlan, 1952; Coggan, 1967; Kurichianil, 1993). Historical theologians dis-
cuss the development of prayer in the church (Simpson, 1965; Kelly, 1966; Jasper
& Cuming, 1987; Guiver, 1988). Philosophical theologians discuss the meaning and
implications of the religious practice of prayer (Phillips, 1965; Baelz, 1968, 1982;
Alhonsaari, 1973; Clements-Jewery, 2005; Brümmer, 2008). Pastoral theologians
provide manuals and suggestions to promote the practice of prayer (Thornton, 1972;
Harries, 1978; Leech, 1980; Miller, 2008; Davidson, 2008).
Reviewing this theological literature, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that
many claims are being made about the efficacy, consequences or correlates of prayer

T. ap Siôn (B)
St Mary’s Centre, St Deiniol’s Library, Hawarden, Flintshire CH5 3DF, UK
e-mail: tania.ap.sion@st-deiniols.org

M. de Souza et al. (eds.), International Handbook of Education for Spirituality, 247

Care and Wellbeing, International Handbooks of Religion and Education 3,
DOI 10.1007/978-1-4020-9018-9 14,  C Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
248 T. ap Siôn and L.J. Francis

and that such claims should properly become the subject of empirical investigation.
This case was made succinctly and effectively by Galton (1883):

It is asserted by some that men possess the faculty of obtaining results over which they have
little or no direct personal control, by means of devout and earnest prayer, while others doubt
the truth of this assertion. The question regards a matter of fact, that has to be determined
by observation and not by authority; and it is one that appears to be a very suitable topic for
statistical enquiry . . .. Are prayers answered or are they not? . . . Do sick persons who pray,
or are prayed for, recover on the average more rapidly than others.

This simple challenge is one which theologians meet in a variety of ways.

Some, like Austin (1978) argue that theological concepts like the omniscience,
omnipotence and all-loving character of the Christian God make divine arbitrary
intervention into human situations in response to petitionary prayer inconsistent
with the nature of God. Rosner (1975), speaking from the Jewish tradition, argues
that the efficacy of prayer does not have to be scientifically proved to be trusted
within the religious community. Others, like Wimber and Springer (1986) and Mac-
Nutt (2005), document their personal involvement and experience in the ministry
of healing.
One discipline which may properly concern itself with investigating empirical
claims regarding the efficacy, consequences or correlates of prayer is psychology.
In particular such claims should fall within the general remit of the psychology of
religion. It is clear, however, from the major text books in the psychology of religion
that the empirical study of prayer remained an underdeveloped field of research, at
least until the mid-1990s. For example, there are just two references to prayer in the
index of Batson, Schoenrade, and Ventis (1993), five in Argyle and Beit-Hallahmi
(1975), five in Spilka, Hood, and Gorsuch (1985), six in Brown (1987), seven in
Paloutzian (1983), eight in Brown (1988) and thirteen in Malony (1991). A similar
impression is generated by reviews of the literature on the psychology of prayer
undertaken during the 1980s and into the 1990s. For example, Finney and Malony
(1985a) write

Nowhere is the long standing breach between psychology and religion more evident than
in the lack of research on prayer. Only a few studies of prayer exist in spite of the fact that
prayer is of central religious importance.

Similar points are made in the reviews by Hood, Morris, and Watson (1987,
1989), Poloma and Pendleton (1989), Janssen, de Hart, and den Draak (1989) and
McCullough (1995).
That lack of interest in research concerned with the psychology of prayer is
particularly strange given the interest shown in the subject by early psychologists
of religion. For example, James (1902) claimed that prayer “is the very soul and
essence of religion.” Coe (1916) wrote that “a history and psychology of prayer
would be almost equivalent to a history and psychology of religion.” Hodge (1931)
argued in his study Prayer and its psychology that “prayer is the centre and soul
of all religion, and upon the question of its validity depends the trustworthiness of
religious experience in general.”