Chase O’Gwin and Dr. Brent Slife, Psychology Department

Main Text

In a recent article Dr. Slife and Reber (2009) make an argument that there is a pervasive bias against theism in psychological research. They state that in the effort to remain neutral towards religious thinking, including Christian theism, the science of psychology has become implicitly biased. This bias is masked by an attempt at neutrality; psychologists assume that God is not required in science, but if a theist wishes to insert a God, nothing is changed. The implicit bias against theism is made manifest because for the theist God is required in all things, and when science informs the theist that God is not required it is a bias against that belief (Slife and Reber, 2009).

I have endeavored to explore Psychology of Religion, particularly the study of prayer, because it would seem logical to assume that if one were to find a theistic world-view present in psychology, it would be in the psychological study of the religious experience that it would be found. The purpose of my research was to determine if the implicit bias against theism is present in prayer research. The first task in this exploration effort was to define prayer for both the theist and the psychological researcher. For the theist, prayer is seen as a real relational experience, and while there are many types of prayer: petition, thanksgiving, penitence, or for the glorification of God, all have the same underlying goal of establishing a relationship with God. Historically, prayer has been examined in many ways. Within psychology, it is often seen as a socialization technique (Ladd&McIntosh, 2008), a cathartic reconciliation, or a coping technique. (Kuchan, 2008; Banzinger, van Uden and Janssen, 2006). The prejudice is evidenced here as these views are seen as neutral to theism when in fact they represent a non-theistic worldview, because God is not required for any of those prayer constructs.

A great exemplar of the prayer studies and psychology’s approach is an article by Ladd and Spilka (2006) in which they review prayer and constructed the Prayer Content Scale. Let us first examine the conceptualization of prayer approached by the authors. At first glance the authors note the difficulty in understanding prayer studies because of the “lack of a theoretical paradigm for understanding the role of prayer in religion” (p.233) The authors sought to rectify this situation by proposing a theoretical backing by which prayer could be understood “as a means of forming cognitive connections” (p. 233) These connections were said to be inward, connections with the self, outward, connections with others, and upward, connections with the divine, the last of which would later be described as “tradition” or the “mystical intangible reality”(p.238). An exploration of the Prayer Content Scale, the measure created for this article by Ladd and Spilka (2006), was also be a fruitful endeavor to understand the presence of the bias. Ladd and Spilka are focusing on a primarily theistic population, yet not once, in the whole questionnaire exploring thoughts involved in prayer, is God mentioned or referenced.

The last section where the bias might be found is in the discussion section of the Ladd and Spilka (2006) study. One element of their discussion is focused on what the authors found to be “intriguing”: They authors stated that “the various prayer dimensions did not show significant correlations with the discrete index of life satisfaction” . They posit the question, “If prayers do not add to life satisfaction, why do so many people engage in them?”(p.246). Curiously, at no time in their study is this question asked of the theist.

But what if such a study were to be done with a theistic view point? How might it differ from the current research being done? I will attempt to sketch out how one might look and provide an example of a study with a theistic world-view.

In the light of psychological study the literature review of a theistic study would need to be just as thorough and academically rigorous as a naturalistic study; however, it would include sources such as theological journals, the ideas of theologians, possibly scripture, or the ideas of religious philosophers like William James. With such sources from which the theistic researcher could draw background and theory conceptualization, God and theistic research would have a better seat at the research table. The methods of such a research undertaking would need to be more inclusive of the experience of the theist.

Conclusions and Discussions sections of a theistic study must also differ from current prayer research, with the inclusion of theistic ideas such as how God interacts with the subjects’ daily life and behavior, and how God’s constant presence in the world effects the study and its outcomes. To be clear, not every study would be need to be a theological treatise, but each would need to include the possibility of God as an explanation of why subjects responded the way they did.

To conclude, it appears that the bias put forth by Slife and Reber (2009) does in fact seem to be present in the psychological study of prayer. However, even with this evidence of an implicit bias, there are many psychologists who would ask “Why is it important to give credence to this bias?” There are many reasons why it is important to recognize the presence of this bias; the most important is that the bias is presented in the guise of neutrality (Slife & Reber, 2009). For one many of the clients and even a good number of therapists profess theism and are going into therapy thinking that the methods that are used in both research and practice are neutral to their religious belief when in fact they are not.

This “neutrality”, the notion that God does not really matter in prayer, leaves the theist confused and alienated. The research does not reflect her beliefs or her feelings toward prayer and thus, because of this bias, the theist and her ideas are excluded from the research conversation. This exclusion is the real problem that must be addressed. The view point of the theist and non-theist may be incompatible (Slife&Reber,2009), but that does not mean a dialogue between the two would not be fruitful.

References

• Banzinger, M., Van Uden, M., & Janssen, J. (2008). Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture. 11(1), 101-118.
• Kuchan, K.L. (2008). Prayer as Therapeutic Process Toward Aliveness Within a Spiritual Direction Relationship. Journal of Religion and Health . 47, 263-275
• Ladd, K.L., McIntosh, D.N. (2008) Meaning, God, and prayer: Physical and metaphysical aspects of social support. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture. 11(1), 23-38
• Ladd, K., & Spilka, B. (2006). Inward, outward, upward prayer: Scale reliability and validation. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 45(2), 233–251.
• Slife, B., Reber, J. (2009). Is There A Pervasive Implicit Bias Against Theism In Psychology? Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology. 29(2), 63-79.