Skip to main content

Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda

πŸ“„ Original study β†—
Masters, Kevin S, Spielmans, Glen I β€’ 2007 Modern Era β€’ healing

πŸ“Œ Appears in:

Plain English Summary

Can strangers praying for you from afar actually improve your health? This meta-analysis crunched 15 randomized studies and found the answer is essentially no. The overall effect was tiny and statistically meaningless. Even more striking: when they removed one study later exposed as fraudulent, the effect plummeted to virtually zero (g = 0.003) -- about as close to "absolutely nothing" as research ever gets. No amount of tweaking the analysis -- looking at how often people prayed, how long they prayed -- changed the picture. The authors make a bold recommendation: stop studying distant intercessory prayer entirely. But they don't dismiss prayer altogether. They note that personal prayer as a coping tool shows some promising signals through ordinary psychological pathways like stress reduction and sense of control.

Actual Paper Abstract

This article reviews the empirical research on prayer and health and offers a research agenda to guide future studies. Though many people practice prayer and believe it affects their health, scientific evidence is limited. In keeping with a general increase in interest in spirituality and complementary and alternative treatments, prayer has garnered attention among a growing number of behavioral scientists. The effects of distant intercessory prayer are examined by meta-analysis and it is concluded that no discernable effects can be found. The literature regarding frequency of prayer, content of prayer, and prayer as a coping strategy is subsequently reviewed. Suggestions for future research include the conduct of experimental studies based on conceptual models that include precise operationally defined constructs, longitudinal investigations with proper measure of control variables, and increased use of ecological momentary assessment techniques.

Research Notes

Key skeptical meta-analysis in the distant healing/prayer controversy. The near-zero effect size (g = 0.003 without a fraudulent study) provides strong evidence against distant intercessory prayer, complementing Benson et al.'s (2006) large null STEP trial. Unique for also proposing constructive research directions for non-distant prayer mechanisms.

An updated meta-analysis of 15 randomized studies on distant intercessory prayer found no discernible health effects. Using a random effects model, the overall effect was g = 0.082 (p = .26); excluding a fraudulent study (Cha & Wirth, 2001), the effect dropped to g = 0.003 (p = .97). No moderator variables β€” random assignment, prayer frequency, or intervention duration β€” significantly influenced outcomes. A narrative review of prayer frequency, prayer content, and prayer as a coping strategy found mixed but suggestive results via recognized psychological mechanisms. The authors recommend abandoning distant intercessory prayer research and focusing on naturally occurring prayer practices studied via longitudinal and experimental designs.

Links

Related Papers

More in Healing

πŸ“‹ Cite this paper
APA
Masters, Kevin S, Spielmans, Glen I (2007). Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda. Journal of Behavioral Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-007-9106-7
BibTeX
@article{masters_2007_prayer,
  title = {Prayer and Health: Review, Meta-Analysis, and Research Agenda},
  author = {Masters, Kevin S and Spielmans, Glen I},
  year = {2007},
  journal = {Journal of Behavioral Medicine},
  doi = {10.1007/s10865-007-9106-7},
}