The focal aim of this particular study was to demonstrate the effect of prayer frequency on well-being and to test whether these effects are moderated by differences in sensitivity. The results suggest that prayer frequency is associated with well-being levels, participants with higher levels of prayer frequency also reported high levels of well-being thus illustrating the positive correlation. This also confirms the first hypothesis proposed. Secondly, the findings illustrate that sensitivity moderates the effects of prayer on well-being, with those reporting high levels of sensitivity alongside prayer frequency also displaying high levels of well-being. These findings are also in line with the second hypothesis proposed prior to the study. From both of these findings, we can infer that prayer contributes to well-being and these effects are moderated by sensitivity. Thus, allowing those with higher levels of sensitivity to benefit more from the positive outcomes associated with prayer.
Moreover, the Mental Health Continuum (MHC) which was used to assess well-being, comprised of three sub scales (emotional, social and psychological well-being). Prayer frequency was found to be most strongly correlated with social well-being. This suggests that prayer frequency allows individuals to feel as part of a community and develop trusting relationships etc. as measured by the social well-being sub-scale. Similar findings have been previously reported by research which found that religious social identity positively contributes to social psychological health, (Greenfield & Marks, 2007).
The current findings found that the ritualistic spirituality sub scale of religiosity was most strongly correlated with well-being. The ritualistic spirituality subscale primarily focused on private and public religious involvement. These findings are particularly interesting as it reinforces the positive effect of religious involvement, in comparison to other facets of religiosity. Prayer can be regarded a form of either private or public religious involvement and it can be inferred that this particular dimension of religiosity is particularly important for well-being. This was demonstrated by the current findings, which are in line with previous literature which has identified prayer as the most important aspect of religiosity contributing to well-being. (Maltby et al., 1999; Poloma & Pendleton, 1991). Hence, the findings may indicate that religious involvement and practices such as prayer may, in fact, be the most important dimensions of religion contributing to well-being.
One central theme investigated through this study was the effect of prayer frequency on well-being. It was hypothesised that high levels of prayer frequency would, in turn, predict increased levels of well-being. This was demonstrated by the current findings which are consistent with previous literature which has continuously demonstrated the positive correlation between prayer frequency and well-being (Maltby et al., 1999; Poloma & Pendleton, 1991). This may be explained by the self-regulation provided by religious behaviours through prayer, which subsequently alters thinking patterns thus resulting in more positive appraisal (James & Wells, 2003). Therefore, this highlights the way prayer may alter cognitive thinking styles which in turn leads to increased positive affect and well-being, as suggested in the present findings. Additionally, the findings may also be explained by the sense of hope provided by prayer. For instance, Levine et al., (2008) found that prayer provided increased levels of hope which predicted positive mood states. Therefore, this implies that the outcomes associated with prayer such as feelings of hope also contribute in well-being. A great number of the participants identified themselves as Muslim and research has reported that the Islamic daily prayers are associated with a decreased activity in the sympathetic nervous system leading to increased feelings of calmness and reduced levels of anxiety (Doufesh et al., 2014). Hence, the current findings support the positive contribution of prayer on well-being which is in line with previous literature. These findings also provide an insight into the impact of prayer for different religious groups.
However, this may not always be the case, one study into the effect of prayer found a positive correlation with neuroticism (Francis et al., 2008), a trait characterised by feelings of anxiety, negative affect, depressed mood etc. (Thompson, 2008). Neuroticism has been linked to low levels of well-being (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998). Therefore, this challenges the present findings as prayer may, in fact, lead to increased levels of neuroticism which in turn negatively impact well-being. Findings by Ellison (1990) reported no correlation between prayer frequency and well-being. Likewise, Lawson et al. (1990) also found a negative correlation. They suggested that when dealing with problems, prayer provided avoidance through mental distraction which is considered to be an ineffective coping mechanism. Thus, also challenging the assumption that prayer improves well-being. Moreover, another perspective suggests that prayer does not improve well-being, as people tend to pray only when they are unable to cope and other mechanisms are not effective (Bearon and Koenig 1990). This implies that prayer may not be a significant factor contributing to well-being but rather a secondary means people opt for when other mechanisms of coping are ineffective. Therefore, although this study does illustrate the positive contribution of prayer on well-being, there are still mixed findings regarding this relationship hence further research is required.
The second hypothesis focused on whether differences in sensitivity moderate the effects of prayer on well-being. As previously discussed, environmental sensitivity can influence the extent to which one can benefit from positive experiences within the environment due to differences rooted in our central nervous system (Boterberg et al., 2016). It was predicted that sensitivity would be a moderating variable in the relationship between prayer and well-being. In line with this claim, the findings demonstrated that individuals with high levels of sensitivity benefit more from the positive outcomes associated with prayer in comparison to those scoring low on sensitivity. These findings provide an insight on how the correlation between prayer and well-being is moderated by individual differences in environmental sensitivity, a relationship which has been previously understudied. Nonetheless, these findings are in line with the assumptions propose by Jay Belsky (1997) in the differential susceptibility theory. It proposed that differences in environmental sensitivity cause people to be more susceptible to both the positive and negative experiences in their environment. Subsequently, this may explain why those with higher sensitivity benefitted more from the positive outcomes associated with prayer. As this may be a direct result of the heightened cognitive processing and emotional reactivity associated with their sensitivity trait (Boterberg et al., 2016; Pluess, 2015).
Furthermore, the findings from the current study also established religiosity to be positively correlated with well-being. Research illustrating this relationship has been previously documented (Green & Elliot, 2010). However, challenging findings have suggested that religion may lead its members to feel great amounts of feelings related to guilt and condemnation (Koeing, 2007). Comparably, Exline (2002) argued that feelings of anxiety and distress may arise if an individual feels they are not righteous enough or regarding sins they feel they have committed. Literature has also linked religiosity to episodes of psychosis, suggesting that for patients suffering from schizophrenia religion may induce religion related hallucinations and delusions (Grover et al., 2014). Moreover, drawing on the early criticisms of the role of religion, for some researchers, religion and well-being are antithetical constructs. Psychologist Albert Ellis (2003), argued that religion was a cause of psychological distress. He suggested that religion is fact dangerous for well-being. This was because he believed religion provided strict restrictions on the expression of sexuality which in turn leads to emotional distress. Therefore, this highlights the way guidelines provided by religion may, in fact, be harmful to well being thus challenging the findings demonstrated by the present study. This also challenges the assumption that religiosity is positively correlated with well being but rather implies that it may actually have adverse effects on well being.
This study was focused primarily on the correlation between prayer frequency and well-being. But, it is difficult to determine causation from the correlation assessed. This is because the correlational nature of the study makes it harder to assess cause and effect. For instance, it does not clarify whether increased prayer leads to better well-being or that individuals with higher levels of well-being may be more inclined to pray more frequently. Similarly, although sensitivity was shown to play a role in this relationship, cause and effect can not be established. High sensitivity may be a result of increased levels of prayer and well-being rather than a moderating factor. Therefore, when investigating the interaction of prayer and sensitivity adopting an alternative methodology to correlational research may be more effective.
Furthermore, a self-report measure was adopted, which means responses may have been prone to the social desirability bias, especially since the main focus was religion. This means participants may have exaggerated their responses which subsequently could have affected the overall validity of the findings. Moreover, 55.5% of the participants stated Islam as their religion, as outlined prayer is a central part of Islam and Muslims are expected to perform 5 obligatory daily prayers. This was highlighted in the prayer frequency statistics which revealed that 42.3% of participants prayed every day. Again, these findings may be subjected to the social desirability bias, as participants may have felt pressured to state they prayed every day. This could be because it is expected within their religion, and consequently may have affected the validity of the results if responses were not truthful. Additionally, religion may be seen as a sensitive topic which may have reduced individuals’ willingness to take part in the study or made some more likely to give invalid responses.
In this particularl study, prayer was measured using a single item scale, however, researchers criticised this approach. According to Ladd and Spilka (2002) prayer should be measured through a multidimensional approach. This is because it will allow research to better illustrate the relationship between the structures of religiosity. Therefore, the single scale item adopted in the current study may not have been an accurate representation of prayer. In line with this claim, prayer can be regarded a complex concept and individuals may have their own perception or understanding of the meaning of prayer and this practice may not only be confined to religious individuals. Hence, when studying prayer, it is vital to adopt a holistic approach. Although studying prayer frequency does provide evidence on its effect on well being, this relationship may also be more complex. For instance, there may be specific types of prayers and content of prayer which may also play a role. So, even though the findings from the present study demonstrate the positive role of prayer for wel- being little is known about the specific ways in which it does so.
Despite these limitations, the use of a Likert scale across all measures used allowed participants to give a more accurate description of how they felt rather than simply answering yes or no, thus providing more insight and validity to the results. The study also investigated how the relationship of prayer and well-being was moderated by individual differences in environmental sensitivity. The role of sensitivity in moderating this relationship has not been previously investigated, thus the findings can be considered novel. The findings from this study also provide an extensive understanding of the role of prayer in well-being as well as providing an opportunity for future research. Additionally, the study was completed by a sufficiently large number of participants across different ages and religions thus making the findings more representative and generalizable to the general population. This was facilitated by the use of an online questionnaire, making it easier to distribute the questionnaire quickly and cheaply to a large audience. Moreover, the use of a questionnaire also makes the study easy to replicate, to further investigate the relationship between prayer frequency and well-being.
The findings from the present study have important implications. For instance, the fast evolving nature of our society today means individuals are more susceptible to a range of different stressors in their lives which may have negative consequences on their well-being. De Vogli (2004) suggested that for some societal changes caused by globalisation results in psychosocial stress which has a negative impact on health. However, as highlighted in this study practises such as prayer may improve well-being and act as a protective mechanism against the negative consequences related to globalisation and societal change. Moreover, illustration of the positive impact of prayer on well-being could, in turn, contribute in the development of similar alternative methods which positively contribute to well-being. One widely used practice similar to prayer is meditation. Incorporating ideas of religion and even prayer, meditation has also been shown to be positively correlated with well-being (Carmody & Baer, 2008). For instance, Goyal et al., (2014) suggested that meditation was helpful in reducing psychological stress. Therefore, like meditation, future research can help in the development of new practices, drawing on concepts related to prayer in order to help in the development of new well being strategies. Early research has been interested in the use of prayer as a form of therapy. This was investigated by Byrd (1988) who concluded that those subjected to a prayer group recovered much better in comparison to the non-prayer group. This is further supported by the current findings which also highlights the significant contribution of prayer on well-being. As a consequence, this demonstrates the therapeutic function of prayer which can consequently be implemented across psychotherapeutic practices. Although, prayer is already a vital feature of many religions. The current findings can also encourage religious organisations to place a greater emphasis on the importance of prayer. This may be through the introduction of group prayer sessions, workshops focusing primarily on the benefits associated with prayer. Thus, allowing members to benefit richly from the positive outcomes associated with prayer.
Additionally, the findings also provide suggestions for future research. For instance, the role of prayer on well-being can be further investigated but through methodologies other than correlational studies. This will allow causation to be revealed, so the claim that prayer improves well-being can be fully accepted. Moreover, the role of sensitivity in this correlation can also be further assessed. For instance, the impact of low levels of sensitivity can be investigated more closely. In order to establish whether those low in sensitivity benefit at all from the effects associated with prayer and provide a clearer understanding of these differences. As this study is the first to highlight how the relationship between prayer and well-being is moderated by individual differences in environment sensitivity, this may, in turn, create a foundation for future research to further investigate the relationship between individual differences and prayer. For instance, personality may be another significant factor in moderating this relationship, as some individuals with certain personality traits may be more inclined to religion or report higher levels of well-being. Research has linked low psychoticism, agreeableness and conscientiousness to religiosity, (Emmons et al., 2003; Saroglou, 2002). Therefore, the findings from this study have important implications for future research, to further investigate the impact of individual differences in religion and well-being. Moreover, as prayer has been shown to contribute to psychological well-being, its specific influence on physical well-being can be further investigated. The effects of prayer can also be investigated using neurological methods such as electroencephalogram (EEG) or functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). This can provide a closer insight into the brain areas activated during or after prayer, allowing researchers to understand better the effects associated with this act. Future research can also investigate in more detail the way the quantitative aspects of prayer influence its effects of well-being. For instance, the duration and number of prayers may play a role in the outcomes associated with well-being (Andrade & Radhakrishnan, 2009). Hence, this study provides a starting point for future research to further investigate the notion of prayer and its general effects in more detail.
In conclusion, the findings from the present study provide further evidence for the reported positive relationship between prayer and well-being. The findings also demonstrate the overall positive influence of religiosity on well-being. Therefore, from the findings prayer can be regarded as one of the most important facets of religion contributing to well-being. Additionally, this study also provides an insight on the importance of individual differences particularly in environmental sensitivity and how these consequently moderate the extent to which one can benefit from prayer. Hence, the results have important implications and create opportunities for prospect research to further investigate the significant contribution of facets of religiosity such as prayer on well-being. However, there are certain limitations to the current study that must also be taken into consideration, for instance, the methodology adopted which may have affected the validity and reliability of the findings. As religiosity is a sensitive topic, the most suitable methodological approach must be adopted in order to gain authentic findings. Nevertheless, the findings do provide a base for future research to examine more closely the intriguing relationship between prayer and the dimensions of well being as well as taking into account the role individual differences play.