Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer

David R. Hodge

First Published March 1, 2007 Review Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731506296170

Perhaps surprisingly, many social workers appear to use intercessory prayer in direct practice settings. To help inform practitioners’ use of this intervention, this article evaluates the empirical literature on the topic using the following three methods: (a) an individual assessment of each study, (b) an evaluation of intercessory prayer as an empirically supported intervention using criteria developed by Division 12 of the American Psychological Association (APA), and (c) a meta-analysis. Based on the Division 12 criteria, intercessory prayer was classified as an experimental intervention. Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer (g =–.171, p =.015). The implications are discussed in light of the APA’s Presidential Task Force on Evidence-based Practice.

Annals of Behavioral Medicine

August 2006, Volume 32, Issue 1, pp 21–26| Cite as

Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review

• Authors
• Authors and affiliations

• ·       Kevin S. Masters
• Glen I. Spielmans
• Jason T. Goodson

Abstract

Background: The use of alternative treatments for illness is common in the United States. Practitioners of these interventions find them compatible with personal philosophies. Consequently, distant intercessory prayer (IP) for healing is one of the most commonly practiced alternative interventions and has recently become the topic of scientific scrutiny.Purpose: This study was designed to provide a current meta-analytic review of the effects of IP and to assess the impact of potential moderator variables.Methods: A random effects model was adopted. Outcomes across dependent measures within each study were pooled to arrive at one omnibus effect size. These were combined to generate the overall effect size. A test of homogeneity and examination of several potential moderator variables was conducted.Results: Fourteen studies were included in the meta-analysis yielding an overall effect size of g = .100 that did not differ from zero. When one controversial study was removed, the effect size reduced to g = .012. No moderator variables significantly influenced results.Conclusions: There is no scientifically discernable effect for IP as assessed in controlled studies. Given that the IP literature lacks a theoretical or theological base and has failed to produce significant findings in controlled trials, we recommend that further resources not be allocated to this line of research.