THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL FOR THE PSYCHOLOGY OF RELIGION, 14(4), 251272

Copyright 2004, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

RESEARCH

Measuring Private Prayer: Development,

Validation, and Clinical Application of
the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory
Steven P. Laird
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Richmond

C. R. Snyder
Department of Psychology
The University of Kansas, Lawrence

Michael A. Rapoff
Department of Pediatrics
The University of Kansas, Lawrence

Sam Green
Division of Psychology in Education
Arizona State University, Tempe

A theoretically derived, empirically validated multidimensional inventory of prayer

is described. Both quantitative and qualitative aspects of prayer are measured, including occurrence, weekly frequency, daily frequency, duration, type (adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, reception), and level of faith in the effects of prayer.
Results revealed the posited 5 distinct types of prayer, along with acceptable internal
consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant utility. Furthermore, several aspects of prayer were related to healthy adjustment for patients with arthritis.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Steven P. Laird, Hunter Holmes McGuire VAMC, 1201 Broad
Rock Blvd., Richmond, VA 23249. E-mail: steven.laird@med.va.gov or C. R. Snyder, 340 Fraser Hall,
Graduate Training Program in Clinical Psychology, Department of Psychology, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas 660452462. E-mail: crsnyder@ku.edu

252

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

Religious faith is central to the lives of most Americans. Ninety-five percent of

adults express a belief in God (Hoge, 1996), 90% view themselves as religious
(Goldman, 1991), and 85% say religion is very important or fairly important in
their lives (Gallup Poll, 2001). One indicator of religious faith is private prayer,
which has been described as the very soul and essence of religion (James,
1902/1961, p. 361). Recent polls consistently report that nearly 90% of adult
Americans engage in prayer (Gallup Report, 1987; Poloma & Gallup, 1991), including both the church-going (89%) and nonchurch-going (84%, Gallup,
1980); moreover, 72% pray daily (Gallup Report, 1993). Even among nonreligious atheists and agnostics, nearly one in five reports praying daily (Greeley,
1996).
Prayer is a complex, multidimensional construct (Ladd & Spilka, 2002; Levin
& Taylor, 1997; Pargament, 1990) and has been described in many different ways
(Finney & Maloney, 1985b; Giardini, 1987). Hood, Spilka, Hunsberger, and
Gorsuch (1996) noted considerable overlap among the different descriptors of
prayer and called for research to clarify the value in distinguishing among types.
We theorize that individuals rely on different types of prayer, depending upon a
variety of factors, including cognitive development and life events, and therefore
the development of a valid, reliable prayer inventory with distinct types would be
useful for studying more closely how prayer impacts people cognitively, emotionally, and physically.
This investigation draws from an historic Christian model of prayer known by
the acrostic ACTS: Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, and Supplication.
Adoration is a type of prayer in which the focus is on the worship and praise of
God, without reference to specific circumstances or needs; confession involves
prayer in which faults, misdeeds, or shortcomings (i.e., sins) are acknowledged;
thanksgiving involves expressions of gratitude for life circumstances; supplicationthe most common prayer type (Johnson, 1959)taps requests for Gods intervention in specific life events for oneself or others. One additional type of
prayer not covered by the ACTS pneumonic, but that is often described in the literature, is contemplative or receptive prayer (Finney & Malony, 1985b). For this
investigation, reception is described as a type of prayer in which one more passively awaits divine wisdom, understanding, or guidance.
Prayer plays a particularly important role in stress and coping (Pargament,
1997), such as during frustration (Welford, 1947), illness (Pargament & Hahn,
1986), and bereavement (Loveland, 1968). Heightened positive or negative emotions also can precipitate prayer (Welford, 1947), with unpleasant situations leading to prayers of supplication, and pleasant situations leading to prayers of
thanksgiving. To date, however, antecedents for the adoration, confession and reception types of prayer have not been reported in the literature. Once an empirically based typology has been established, researchers will have greater potential
for developing a stress-response model of prayer.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

253

Coping strategies have been described as either problem-focused (e.g., gathering information, mobilizing support, skills training) or emotion-focused (e.g., expressing affect, relabeling cognitions, relaxation training; Lazarus & Folkman,
1984). In this regard, Carver, Scheier, and Weintraub (1989) suggested that religious coping can be important both in problem-focused and emotion-focused coping efforts. Research to date supports this position (Koenig, George, & Siegler,
1988; Schneider & Kastenbaum, 1993; Shaw, 1992).
Similarly, different types of prayer may be used during the process of coping
with stressful life events. Initially, prayer may be used more as a problem-focused
technique (e.g., prayers of supplication, confession, or reception); then, if a problem becomes chronic or if persons believe they can exert little personal control
over the event, they may rely more heavily upon what may be described as emotion-focused prayers (e.g., adoration, thanksgiving).
The ability to exercise control during stressful circumstances is important in effective coping (Jenkins & Pargament, 1988; Thompson, 1981). In this regard, different types of prayer can be especially valuable when events are perceived as
uncontrollable, as is often the case in coping with illness (Bearon & Koenig, 1990;
Saudia, Kinney, Brown, & Young-Ward, 1991). For instance, prayers of adoration
might be made as a reminder of Gods sovereignty, omnipotence, and righteous
character. As a result, the person praying can potentially be at peace in any and all
circumstances, knowing that God is effectively addressing his or her needs. Even
in seemingly uncontrollable circumstances, prayer may be perceived as a vehicle
to effect change, if not in the condition itself, then in the meaning assigned to the
condition. From the perspective of attribution theory, types of prayer may help
people to understand and accept otherwise unmanageable situations. For example,
the most common explanation given for severe spinal cord injuries is to view it as
part of Gods plan (Bulman & Wortman, 1977).
The psychological and physical benefits of prayer have long been reported (cf.
James, 1902/1961). Contemporary research documents positive correlates, including greater purpose in life, enhanced marital satisfaction, existential well-being,
religious satisfaction, increased hardiness, and recovery from alcohol dependence
(see McCullough, 1995).
Prayer is particularly notable among those suffering from pain. Abraido-Lanza,
Guier, and Revenson (1996), for example, found that prayer was the most common
response of Hispanic women in coping with arthritis. Similarly, Bill-Harvey,
Rippey, Abeles, and Pfieffer (1989) studied methods among low-income minorities in caring for their arthritis; subjective reports revealed prayer to be the most
helpful remedy or treatment (p. 60) for African-Americans in caring for their
osteoarthritismore than five times the rate of perceived efficacy attributed to
prescribed medicine. Another study of patients with arthritis revealed that prayer
was the most commonly used unconventional remedy, with 54% of those who
pray saying it was very helpful (Cronan, Kaplan, Posner, Blumberg, & Kozin,

254

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

1989, p. 1606). Although it has been suggested that prayer is a maladaptive pain
coping strategy (Keefe & Dolan, 1986), research also has shown that that praying
or hoping (p. 358) was related to decreased pain intensity, physical impairment,
and psychosocial impairment (Turner & Clancy, 1986).
Other recent research has linked prayer with hope (Snyder, 1994, 1998, 2000;
Snyder, Cheavens, & Michael, 1999). Baldree, Murphy, and Powers (1982) found
that prayer and hope were two of the most frequent methods of coping for
hemodialysis patients. Likewise, Jalowiec and Powers (1981) reported that prayer
and hope were among the most frequent coping methods for patients with hypertension. In yet another study, interviewing hospice caregivers, prayer was found to
be of vital importance in maintaining caregivers sense of hope (Schneider &
Kastenbaum, 1993, p. 476).
Despite the growing literature on prayer, there are few reported prayer measures (Hill & Hood, 1999). To date, prayer typically is evaluated in simple terms,
principally measuring the incidence or frequency of occurrence (Argyle &
Beit-Hallahmi, 1975; McCullough, 1995). On two of the most reputable coping
measures, the Ways of Coping Scale (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984) and the COPE
Scale (Carver et al., 1989), prayer is assessed with only one item. In this regard,
Poloma and Pendleton (1991) suggest that reliance solely on frequency does not
capture the richness and multidimensional nature of prayer.
In light of the central role that prayer plays in peoples lives, and particularly in
the area of coping, this investigation was conducted to (a) develop a multidimensional measure of prayer, and (b) evaluate the role of prayer, as measured by this
new instrument, as a coping strategy. Only a few a priori predictions were made. A
five-factor solution (adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, and reception) was predicted for qualitative prayer types based on the theoretical underpinnings of the items. To examine concurrent validity, prayer types, frequency,
duration, and level of faith all were predicted to be positively correlated with
higher hope and intrinsically-based religious beliefs. Finally, to examine the role
of prayer as a coping strategy, scale scores from the multidimensional prayer inventory were correlated with various coping indexes among patients with arthritis.

METHOD
Research Participants
Two different populations were recruited. First, to empirically develop and validate
the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory, 314 undergraduate students from an introductory psychology course at the University of Kansas participated in the study, as
a means of partially fulfilling course requirements. Participants included 187 men,
118 women, and one person of unreported gender. Nine subjects were excluded

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

255

from analyses due to missing gender datum (1), missing age data (3), and nontraditional student status (5). Average age was 19.3 years (Range = 1824).
Second, to study the role of prayer as a coping technique for adults with arthritis, patients from the rheumatology clinic at the University of Kansas Medical
Center were invited to participate. The sample was comprised of 36 men (21 rheumatoid arthritis, 1 juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, 14 osteoarthritis), and 126 women
(72 rheumatoid arthritis, 2 juvenile rheumatoid arthritis, 52 osteoarthritis). Average age was 60 (Range = 2189). Median education completed was high school.
Median income was $15,00020,000. Eighteen percent were homemakers, 33%
were retired, 28% were disabled, and 1% were unemployed. Median duration of
arthritis was 13 years.

Measures

Multidimensional Prayer Inventory (MPI). The MPI was designed to

include both quantitative and qualitative aspects of prayer and, as such, included
several subscales. The 21-item MPI can be seen in the Appendix. Quantitative
items included frequency per day (Item 2), frequency per week (Item 1), and
duration (Item 3); qualitative items included five theoretical prayer types (three per
each of the Adoration, Confession, Thanksgiving, Supplication, and Reception
subscales; Items 418), and belief in the effect of ones prayer (Items 19, 20).
Religious affiliation was also assessed (Item 21). In addition, the incidence of
prayer and its occurrence during the past month were indirectly assessed according
to initial written instructions (preceding Items 1, 2).

Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales (AIMS). The AIMS is a series of

scales used to assess the functional status and well-being of individuals suffering
from various rheumatic diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis
(Meenan, Gertman, Mason, & Dunaif, 1982). The AIMS measures functional status according to five different factors: lower extremity function, upper extremity
function, affect (including depression and anxiety items), symptom (i.e., pain), and
social interaction (Mason, Anderson, & Meenan, 1988). Research has supported
the five-factor structure for the AIMS (Mason et al., 1988) and the measures internal reliability and validity (Meenan et al., 1982). The AIMS consists of 45 questions, measuring the five functional status factors. They also include a four-item experimental health perception scale and a single Likert-type item to measure how
well people are doing relative to the way their arthritis affects them (from here on
referred to as Subjective Impact). Finally, an additional 16 questions were used to
gather demographic and health status data. Occupation and previous occupation
were combined to form a Primary Occupation variable. This was done to reflect the

256

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

occupations of those who were working at the time of the investigation, as well as
those who reported being retired, unemployed, or disabled.

Religious Orientation Scale (ROS). The ROS (Allport & Ross, 1967) was
included to assist in establishing the convergent validity of the MPI. Allport and
Ross first described religious behavior according to two orientations, extrinsic and
intrinsic, saying the extrinsically motivated person uses his religion, whereas the
intrinsically motivated lives his religion (p. 434). Research on the ROS has shown
that the two orientations are orthogonal and that people with the intrinsic orientation are healthier on measures of psychological well-being, internal locus of control, existential and trait anxiety, self-control, and personal and social adequacy
(Donahue, 1985). Evidence of the reliability of the scale could not be located, but
much is available attesting to its convergent and discriminant validity (Donahue,
1985).
Hope Scale
The Hope Scale (Snyder et al., 1991) is a 12-item self-report questionnaire that assesses hope in terms of a persons perceived capacity to generate successful routes
to meet goals (pathways), and the mental energy to initiate and sustain movement
along those routes (agency). These two components, as well as the scales internal
consistency, stability, convergent validity, and discriminant utility, have been well
documented (Snyder, Sympson, Michael, & Cheavens, 2000). Four items tap
agency, four tap pathways, and four are distracters. The scale yields three scores:
agency, pathways and total hope.
Procedure
Over the course of two semesters, the MPI was given to the undergraduate students.
Men were disproportionately recruited (187 men, 118 women) to provide comparable group sizes for prayer type analyses (i.e., men engaged in prayer less frequently
than women). Also, 162 adult patients with arthritis completed the MPI, Hope
Scale, ROS, and AIMS. Participants in both samples were allowed to ask questions
during and upon completion of the study. They then were thanked and excused.
RESULTS
Prayer Frequency
Based on responses to the first two items of the MPI, 80% (243) of the college sample reported engaging in private prayer (86% of women, 76% of men); and, of those
who did pray, 77% (188) prayed during the past month (90% of women, 68% of

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

257

men). Of those with arthritis, 91% (148) reported engaging in private prayer (93%
of women, 86% of men); and, of those who did pray, 91% (135) prayed during the
past month (91% of women, 90% of men).
Because this investigation sought to study not only those who engage in prayer,
but also those who do not, several of the analyses were repeated using: (a) the participants who prayed during the past month, (b) those who reported not praying in
private, and (c) those who had not prayed during the past month. The first group is
referred to as prayers, whereas the latter two groups are collectively referred to as
nonprayers.
To include nonprayers in the analyses, many of their responses on the MPI were
re-coded. Directions specified that if respondents did not pray in private, or had not
done so during the past month, they were to skip to the last item (#21) of the questionnaire and indicate their religious affiliation. The skipped sections (with intentionally missing data) were re-coded as zeroes for frequency per week, frequency
per day, and duration and as ones (Never) for prayer type items. The two items
measuring belief in the effect of prayer (#19, 20) could not be re-coded, because no
single score could be determined for respondents.1 Consequently, these two items
were excluded from all analyses that included nonprayers.
Scale Development

Qualitative Prayer Scalecollege sample. Initially, a series of item and

factor analyses were used to establish the reliability and validity of the five
predicted qualitative prayer types on the MPI (Items 418, see Appendix). First, all
analyses were conducted with the college sample. To assist with scale development
and cross-validation, the data set was randomly divided into two groups. The first
group was used to make an initial evaluation of the 15 prayer type items
(collectively referred to as the Qualitative Prayer Scale), so as to determine which
items, if any, should be deleted from the scale. The second group then was used for
cross validation, so as to evaluate the Qualitative Prayer Scale after any deletions
were made. Only data from persons who reported having prayed during the past
month were included in these analyses.
First, to assess the reliability of the Qualitative Prayer Scale, an item analysis
was run on the first half of the data. The Cronbachs alpha was .92. Because of this
high alpha, no items were deleted. Next, to verify the appropriateness of a factor
analysis on the Qualitative Prayer Scale, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy and Bartletts test of sphericity were conducted. Both measures
supported the use of a factor analysis (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin = .88; Bartletts 2 =
1For example, the investigators could not know with certainty if a nonprayer would have rated I believe that my prayers have an effect on my life as 1 (Strongly Disagree), 4 (Neutral), or some score in
between that range.

258

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

1017, p < .001). Consequently, a principal axis factor analysis with an oblique rotation was conducted on the first half of the data. An oblique rotation was chosen
because the five prayer types were conceptualized as being correlated. Additionally, a criterion of extracting five factors was set for the analysis because five
types were theorized. Results showed that the three highest item loadings of each
of the five factors were consistent with the a priori assignments on 14 of the 15
items. Because of the scales high internal consistency and the close match between the five-factor solution and the Qualitative Prayer Scales theoretical model,
no changes were made.
Analyses on the second half of the data yielded a coefficient alpha of .87, and
the factor analysis again produced the predicted five-factor solution.
Finally, because no changes to the Qualitative Prayer Scale were deemed necessary, the two sets of data were combined for one last set of analyses. For these
analyses, the data were analyzed using EQS (Bentler, 1995), applying the maximum likelihood method with robust significance tests (Satorra & Bentler, 1994).
This method tends to perform better than standard maximum likelihood approaches with non-normal, Likert data (Green, Akey, Flemming, Hershberger, &
Marquis, 1997). Results again confirmed a good fit with the theoretical model, 2
(80, N = 186) = 200.77, CFI = .92, RMSEA= .09. Items were generally highly related with their associated factors, and the standardized weights (correlations) for
the factor generally were above .60. Correlations among factors ranged from .56 to
.73, except for Supplication, in which the correlations ranged from .16 to .21.

Qualitative Prayer Scalearthritis sample. A similar set of analyses was

run on the data from the adult patients with arthritis. The item analysis revealed a
coefficient alpha of .92. EQS results once again provided good support for the five
factor model, 2 (80, N = 128) = 148.42, CFI = .92, RMSEA= .08; items were generally highly related with their associated factors, and all standardized weights for the
general factor were above .60. Correlations among factors were even higher for the
arthritis sample, as compared to the college sample.

Quantitative Prayer Scalecollege sample. A series of correlations was

run to evaluate the usefulness of the quantitative items on the MPI. First, frequency
per week, frequency per day, duration, and level of belief in the effect of prayer on
the self and others were all intercorrelated to determine the appropriateness of combining scores to form composite measures. Only the two items assessing the effect
of prayer were highly correlated, r(178) = .77, so they were combined to form a
composite measure referred to as faith. The other three items were less strongly correlated (median r of .39), and consequently they were left separate. These items are

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

259

referred to as frequency per week, frequency per day, and duration. Frequency per
week, frequency per day, duration, and faith were intercorrelated with the five
Qualitative Prayer Scale types and the sum of these five types (referred to as Qualitative Prayer Scale total, see Table 1). All correlations were significant (p < .01),
except for the relationship between frequency per day with confession,
thanksgiving, and supplication.
The MPI then was correlated with religious affiliation. Because the majority of
college subjects were either Protestant or Catholic (79%), nonProtestants and
nonCatholics were excluded from these analyses. No meaningful correlations resulted when looking at the data for prayers and nonprayers. To establish the convergent validity of the MPI, frequency per week, frequency per day, duration, the
qualitative prayer types, and faith were all correlated with the ROS and the Hope
Scale (see Table 2). Results revealed that all of the MPI components were highly
positively correlated with the intrinsic orientation (p < .001), except the supplication prayer type. In contrast, none of the MPI components was correlated signifiTABLE 1
Correlations Among Multidimensional Prayer Inventory Qualitative and Quantitative Components
Freq/Wk Freq/Day Duration Faith Adoration Confession Thanksgiving Supplication
College samplea
Freq/Day
Duration
Faith
Adoration
Confession
Thanksgiving
Supplication
Reception
QPS Total

.30**
.43**
.46**
.42**
.35**
.39**
.30**
.36**
.49**

.28**
.25**
.27**
.12
.10
.17
.30**
.26**

.43**
.40**
.37**
.41**
.21*
.37**
.47**

.45**
.29**
.35**
.33**
.40**
.49**

.49**
.63**
.28**
.64**
^

.51**
.26**
.50**
^

.29**
.51**
^

.32**
^

Arthritis sampleb
Freq/Day
Duration
Faith
Adoration
Confession
Thanksgiving
Supplication
Reception
QPS Total

.35**
.43**
.56**
.58**
.31**
.53**
.40**
.54**
.57**

.03
.25*
.31**
.23
.28*
.24*
.28*
.32**

.32**
.42**
.32**
.36**
.39**
.40**
.46**

.56**
.32**
.56**
.47**
.54**
.59**

.53**
.72**
.58**
.71**
^

.51**
.45**
.56**
^

.58**
.77**
^

.61**
^

Notes. aN = 176; bN = 126; QPS = Qualitative Prayer Scale; ^ = not applicable due to spurious nature of
corelation.
*p < .01. **p < .001.

260

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

TABLE 2
Correlations Between Multidimensional Prayer Inventory Components and the Religious
Orientation Scale and the Hope Scale
Intrinsic

Extrinsic

Pathways

Agency

Hope Total

Undergraduate
Freq/Week
Freq/Day
Duration
Faith
Adoration
Confession
Thanksgiving
Supplication
Reception
QPS Total

.56**
.54**
.65**
.68**
.64**
.52**
.54**
.13
.58**
.63**

.27
.16
.08
.29
.05
.00
.00
.09
.08
.02

.07
.01
.00
.13
.02
.21
.05
.07
.13
.13

.09
.09
.05
.23
.14
.10
.19
.00
.06
.13

.02
.06
.03
.22
.10
.18
.15
.04
.12
.16

Arthritis sampleb
Freq/Week
Freq/Day
Duration
Faith
Adoration
Confession
Thanksgiving
Supplication
Reception
QPS Total

.58**
.34**
.46**
.59**
.53**
.30**
.48**
.47**
.53**
.55**

.13
.19
.09
.13
.05
.01
.07
.10
.05
.06

.08
.12
.09
.17
.01
.10
.17
.11
.17
.13

.20
.15
.10
.23
.25*
.23
.28*
.17
.29*
.30*

.16
.15
.00
.23
.14
.19
.25*
.16
.26*
.24*

samplea

Notes. aN = 61. bN = 121. QPS = Qualitative Prayer Scale.

*p < .01. **p < .001.

cantly with the extrinsic orientation, nor with the Hope Scale. When nonprayers
were included, all components of the Inventory again were significantly positively
correlated with the intrinsic orientation score (p < .001). No other significant correlations were found.

Quantitative Prayer Scalearthritis sample. Frequency per week, frequency per day, duration, and level of belief in the effect of prayer on self and others
were all intercorrelated to determine the appropriateness of combining scores to
form composite measures. Results from these correlations were consistent with
those found in the college sample (median r of .31). Again, the two items assessing
the effect of prayer on self and others (r = .71, p <.001) were combined to form a
composite measure referred to as faith.
Thereafter, frequency per week, frequency per day, duration and faith were
intercorrelated with the five Qualitative Prayer Scale types and the Qualitative

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

261

Prayer Scale total (see Table 1). As with the college sample, all correlations were
significant (p < .01), except for the relationship between frequency per day with
duration and confession. The MPI was then correlated with religious affiliation.
Again, because the majority of subjects were either Catholic or Protestant (96%),
nonCatholics and nonProtestants were excluded from these analyses. Correlations
were nonsignificant, except that being Catholic was positively correlated with
praying more frequently per day (p < .01). When nonprayers were included, results
were identical.
Finally, to assess again for convergent validity, the MPI was correlated with the
ROS and the Hope Scale (see Table 2). Results revealed once again that all of the
MPI components were highly positively correlated with the intrinsic orientation (p
< .001), including the supplication prayer type. In contrast to the college sample,
the adoration, thanksgiving, and reception Qualitative Prayer types and the Qualitative Prayer Scale total were positively correlated with the agency component of
the Hope Scale (p < .01). The latter three also were positively correlated with the
Hope Scale total scores (p < .01). When nonprayers were included, results were essentially the same for the ROS, but only two significant correlations were found
for the Hope Scale, with reception and the Qualitative Prayer Scale total correlating with agency, r(142) = .22, p < .01.

Prayer and Coping With Arthritis

Preliminary analyses. Several preliminary analyses were conducted to

evaluate the potential relationship of various demographic, disease, and medical
treatment variables on the five AIMS subscale scores, Composite score, Health
Perception score, and Subjective Impact score. First, a series of t-tests was conducted comparing subjects with and without a concurrent medical problem across
the various scores (dependent measures). A significant difference was found only
on lower extremity function (LEF), t(154) = 3.01, p = .003. A subsequent series of
t-tests revealed that high blood pressure (HBP), heart disease (HD) and diabetes
(DB) were all significantly related to worse scores on LEF, t(156) = 2.00, p = .047,
t(155) = 2.16, p = .032, t(156) = 2.08, p = .039, respectively. Therefore, subsequent
regression analyses involving LEF included HBP, HD and DB as covariates (predictor variables). The demographic, disease and medical variables were compared
to each of the dependent measures to evaluate their potential impact. Correlations
were used for quantitative variables (e.g., age, gender, education); one-way
ANOVAs were used for qualitative variables (e.g., race, marital status, occupation). Several significant correlations (p < .01) were found, but only income appeared to be consistently related to most of the dependent measures. One-way
ANOVAs yielded no significant effects, with the proportion of variance (R2)
never exceeding 12 percent. Consequently, income was selected as the sole demo-

262

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

graphic variable to be controlled in all subsequent regression analyses of each dependent measure.

Regression analyses. To study the relationship between prayer and arthritis, a series of univariate stepwise multiple regressions was used to evaluate the
ability of prayer to predict the impact of arthritis. Predictor variables included: frequency per week, frequency per day, duration, faith, the five qualitative prayer
types, and the Qualitative Prayer Scale total. Income was included as a covariate for
each criterion variable and HBP, HD and DB were included only for the LEF criterion variable. Criterion variables included: the five AIMS subscale scores, the
AIMS composite score, the Health Perception score, and the Subjective Impact
score. Four sets of analyses were run. First, only those who had prayed during the
past month were considered. Then nonprayers were included (with faith excluded
for coding reasons). Next, only patients with rheumatoid or juvenile rheumatoid arthritis who had prayed during the past month were analyzed. Finally, only patients
with osteoarthritis who prayed during the past month were considered. Six of the
nine MPI variables were significant predictors of the various AIMS scores (see Table 3). One of the most notable predictors was faith, which explained 15% of the
variance of affect (depressive/anxiety symptoms) among patients with rheumatoid
arthritis. The more faith the patients had, the fewer the unpleasant affective symptoms they reported experiencing. In contrast, frequency per week was the best predictor (13%) of affect for patients with osteoarthritis. The more days per week they
prayed, the better their affective disposition. Faith was also a significant predictor
(13%) of increased social interaction for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Aside
from the MPI variables, income was a significant predictor of all AIMS scores except social interaction.

Discriminant Utility of the Multidimensional Prayer Inventory

To demonstrate the discriminant utility of the MPI, a series of hierarchical
univariate multiple regressions was conducted. More specifically, these analyses
were used to determine the extent to which the MPI could explain the criterion variables variance beyond that of the Hope Scale and ROS. Predictors were forced into
the regression equation in three steps: Hope total scores, then intrinsic and extrinsic
scores from the ROS, and then MPI scores (Qualitative Prayer Scale total was excluded because subscale scores were used). The analyses also were run with the opposite order of forced entry. Income, HBP, HD and DB were not included as
covariates in these analyses because the removal of such effects was not thought to
be important in determining augmentation of prediction. Criterion variables included the five AIMS subscale scores, the AIMS composite score, the Health Per-

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

263

TABLE 3
Multidimensional Prayer Inventory Significant Predictors of AIMS Scores for Patients Who Pray
and Have Arthritis

Criterion

Predictor(s)

Patients who pray

Affect
faith
Social interaction reception

Cumulative
R2

16.83 (1,122) = .0001

4.57 (1,122) = .03

12.1%
3.6%

Health

income

8.50 (1,122) = .004

6.5%

Perception

freq/week

7.78 (2,121) = .001

11.4%

confession

6.64 (3, 120) = .001

14.2%

All patients
Social interaction reception

4.63 (1,146)

= .03

Patients with rheumatoid/juvenile rheumatoid arthritis who pray

UEF
freq/day
5.90 (1,70) = .018
Affect
faith
12.65 (1,70) = .0007
income
10.07 (2,69) = .0001
Social interaction faith
10.18 (1,70) = .002
Health perception freq/week

3.1%

7.8%
15.3%
22.6%
12.7%

7.97 (1,71)

= .006

10.1%

7.47 (1,49)

= .001

13.2%

income
Social interaction freq/day

6.87 (2,48)
4.69 (1,49)

= .002
= .035

22.3%
8.7%

Subjective impact income

thanksgiving

14.87 (1,49)
10.56 (2,48)

= .001
= .001

23.3%
30.5%

Patients with osteoarthritis who pray

Affect
freq/week

reception

11.04 (3,47) < .0001

41.3%

Interpretation

More faith, better affect

More reception, more
interaction
More income, less health
concerns
More freq/week, less
health concerns
Less confession, less
health concerns
More reception, more
interaction
More freq/day, worse UEF
More faith, better affect
More income, better affect
More faith, more
interaction
More freq/week, less
health concerns
More freq/week, better
affect
More income, better affect
More freq/day, more
interaction
More income, less impact
More thanksgiving, less
impact
More reception, less
impact

Notes. Predictors listed in order of entry into regression equations. UEF = Upper Extremity Function.

ception score, and the Subjective Impact score. When studying only patients who
had prayed during the past month, results revealed that the MPI was able to augment prediction beyond that of the Hope Scale and ROS for UEF (2 = .15, p = .03),
Affect (2 = .13, p = .04) and Subjective Impact (2 = .14, p = .03). When the analyses were run with the opposite order of forced entry, the Hope Scale augmented prediction beyond that of the MPI and ROS for LEF (2 = .04, p = .03), upper extremity

264

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

function (UEF; 2 = .06, p = .01) and AIMS Composite (2 = .04, p = .02). When the
analyses were repeated to include nonprayers, all results for the MPI become
non-significant. This is likely due to the lack of range among MPI scores for
nonprayers (i.e., none prayed, therefore all their scores were zeroes or never),
which diminished the variance of MPI scores for those who did pray, thus reducing
the ability of MPI scores to predict AIMS scores.

DISCUSSION
The purposes of these two studies were to develop, empirically validate, and
clinically apply a Multidimensional Prayer Inventory (MPI). Results were largely
consistent with a priori predictions.
In developing the MPI, responses of college students and adult patients with arthritis were analyzed. Results from both populations demonstrated high internal
consistency for the qualitative items and confirmed the predicted five prayer types
(adoration, confession, thanksgiving, supplication, and reception). Occurrence of
all the different types of prayer was evident at relatively high frequencies, yet
some distinct differences also were found among types. For example, prayers of
adoration were the most common, occurring most of the time for patients with
arthritis. Confession occurred with the least frequency for both students and patients, but still was present in their prayers half the time or more during the past
month (about half the time to much of the time). This reporting of fewer confessional prayers may be related to a moderately positive bias people tend to have
toward themselves (Taylor & Brown, 1988). A mounting body of research has
shown that maintaining such a positive illusion about oneself bolsters psychological well-being and buffers stress (Taylor & Brown, 1994).
In addition to the qualitative prayer types, quantitative measures of frequency
per day, frequency per week, duration, and faith contributed significantly to the
multidimensional nature of the inventory and were found to have good internal
consistency. As a whole, MPI indexes were strongly correlated with the intrinsic
religious orientation, attesting to the measures good convergent validity and reaffirming prayer as a good predictor of religiosity. Finally, discriminant utility of the
MPI was demonstrated through regression analyses, confirming the usefulness of
a prayer measure beyond that of related constructs.
Prayer plays a particularly important role for those coping with stressful life
events. In this investigation, different aspects of prayer were found to be significantly correlated with several physical health concerns for those diagnosed with
arthritis. For example, among patients with rheumatoid arthritis, the more frequently per day they engaged in prayer, the worse their Upper Extremity Function
(UEF). Given the correlational design of the study, one can only speculate about
the meaning of this, but one viable hypothesis is that as patients physical function-

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

265

ing deteriorated, they became more inclined to pray in an effort to cope with the
discomfort (see Turner & Clancy, 1986).
Prayer also was related to fewer physical health concerns for those who prayed.
The more frequently per week they prayed, the less worried they were about their
health and the greater their sense of resistance to illness. One possible explanation
for this is that frequent prayer may contribute to a more robust sense of personal
health (see Taylor & Brown, 1988, 1994). Another interesting and related finding
was that the less often patients engaged in confession, the fewer the health concerns they had. This may be explained by the common experience that when people develop health problems, they are prone to wonder what they might have done
wrong to deserve them (Pargament & Hahn, 1986). To the degree to which this is
the case, those suffering from medical conditions may engage in prayers of confession in an effort to initiate and facilitate the healing process. Collectively, these
various physical health correlations with different facets of prayer demonstrate the
value and need for assessing prayer with a multidimensional measure.
Apart from patients physical health, their emotional and social well-being was
also positively related to several indexes on the MPI. The most striking finding was
that those with greater faith reported fewer symptoms of depression and anxiety.
This was particularly evident for those with rheumatoid arthritis. Faith in the effect
of their prayers may likely reflect an underlying belief and trust in a benevolent God
who cares for their every need (Pargament, 1996). For example, Christians are told
to pray with thanksgiving, and to anticipate, as a result, an incomprehensible sense of
release from emotional and cognitive distress regarding their circumstances. In doing so, this may free them up to experience healthier thoughts and feelings, and to become engaged in healthier behaviors. As evidence of this, prayers of thanksgiving
were positively related to the overall subjective well-being of patients with
osteoarthritis who engaged in prayer. Such correlations between prayer and health
factors are consistent with other research showing that people with faith tend to be
more optimistic (Sethi & Seligman, 1993), happy (Ellison, 1991), and have an overall better sense of well-being (Hackney & Sanders, 2003; Pollner, 1989).
Health benefits of prayer may also partially explain the positive correlation
found between faith and social involvement among the patients with rheumatoid
arthritis. The more faith they had in the effects of prayer, the more socially active
they were. In contrast, for patients with osteoarthritis, prayer frequency per day
and frequency per week were the significant predictors of social interaction and
emotional health (respectively). Once again, it seems that different aspects of
prayer become more prominent depending upon the unique circumstances in the
lives of those who pray.
Elements of prayer were also positively correlated with hope, though exclusively
for the patient population and only within the agency component of hope. Contrary
to what was expected, faith was not one of the significant correlates, but this may
have been due to the conservative significance level (p < .01). In fact, upon closer in-

266

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

spection, many additional MPI indexes evidenced strong trends in their positive relationship to agency. Why prayer was unrelated to the pathways component of hope
is unclear. It seems that patients diagnosed with chronic arthritis and who engage in
prayer have the necessary energy and wherewithal to pursue goals and manage life
(agency), but their prayer life is unrelated to their perceived ability to overcome
problems (pathways). One interpretation is that they may have come to a greater degree of acceptance of their circumstances and no longer pursue pathways of change
through prayer. The earlier findings showing better emotional health, social involvement, and health perception among those who pray would support this acceptance hypothesis. Prayer by those with a chronic illness may serve as a valuable
method for maintaining energy and a sense of ability to endure, despite having a condition for which they have no means of overcoming.
In contrast to the medical patients, prayer indexes for the undergraduate students were not significantly related to hope. Even trends were rare. Recent research shows that people are more inclined toward collaborative and deferring
religious coping styles as situations get more uncontrollable (Bickel, Ciarrocchi,
Scheers, Estadt, Powell, & Pargament, 1998). Thus, for college students in general, the stressors may not be of sufficient magnitude to produce hope and prayer
relationships.
Of course, it is important to emphasize that these results must be tempered by
several limitations. Most notably, analyses were correlational and, thus, nothing
can be said in regard to the impact of the various types of private prayer on peoples lives. If scientific rigor is applied in future investigations of private prayer,
researchers will be able to critically evaluate the role that prayer plays as a coping
strategy for those people who are facing stressors. Second, the measure should be
validated on additional populations using other indexes of well-being. Also,
test-retest reliability should be established. Finally, several minor changes of the
MPI should be considered when conducting future research. First, the vocabulary
could be simplified for those with lower reading levels. Second, an explicit question would be preferable in determining whether or not a person prays, rather than
relying on inference based on the initial written instructions. Third, a ratio scale
(e.g., merely asking the number of minutes per day that the person prays) would be
preferable for the duration item (see Appendix, question three). Overall, therefore,
we see these two studies as but a promising start in the psychological exploration
of prayer types and coping.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors express their appreciation for the assistance and critical review provided by Herbert B. Lindsley, MD, University of Kansas Medical Center, Department of Allergy, Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

267

REFERENCES
Abraido-Lanza, A. F., Guier, C., & Revenson, T. A. (1996). Coping and social support resources among
Latinos with arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 9, 501508.
Allport, G. W. & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 5, 432443.
Argyle, M. & Beit-Hallahmi, B. (1975). The social psychology of religion. Boston: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Baldree, K. S., Murphy, S. P., & Powers, M. J. (1982). Stress identification and coping patterns in
patients on hemodialysis. Nursing Research, 31, 107112.
Bearon, L. B., & Koenig, H. G. (1990). Religious cognitions and use of prayer in health and illness. The
Gerontologist, 30, 249253.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). Structural equation modeling manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Bickel, C. O., Ciarrocchi, J. W., Scheers, N. J., Estadt, B. K., Powell, D. A., & Pargament, K. I. (1998). Perceived
stress, religious coping styles and depressive affect. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 17, 3342.
Bill-Harvey, D., Rippey, R. M., Abeles, M., & Pfeiffer, C. A. (1989). Methods used by urban,
low-income minorities to care for their arthritis. Arthritis Care and Research, 2, 6064.
Bulman, R. J., & Wortman, C. B. (1977). Attributions of blame and coping in the real world: Severe
accident victims react to their lot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 351363.
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Weintraub, J. K. (1989). Assessing coping strategies: A theoretically
based approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 267283.
Cronan, T. A., Kaplan, R. M., Posner, L., Blumberg, E., & Kozin, F. (1989). Arthritis and Rheumatism,
32, 16041607.
Donahue, M. J. (1985). Intrinsic and extrinsic religiousness: Review and meta-analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 400419.
Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 32, 8089.
Finney, J. R., & Malony, H. N. (1985a). Contemplative prayer and its use in psychotherapy: A
theoretical model. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13, 172181.
Finney, J. R., & Malony, H. N. (1985b). Empirical studies of Christian prayer: A review of the literature.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 13, 104115.
Gallup, G. H., Jr. (1980). The search for Americas faith. Nashville, TN: Parthenon.
Gallup Organization. (1987, April). Religion in America (Report No. 259). Princeton, NJ: Author.
Gallup Organization. (1993, December). Life magazine survey on prayer. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Gallup Poll. (2001, February). Retrieved April 9, 2001 from http://www.gallup.com/
poll/indicators/indreligion.asp
Giardini, F. (1987). The conscious and unconscious mind in prayer. Journal of Psychology and
Christianity, 6, 520.
Goldman, A. L. (1991, April 10). Portrait of religion in U.S. holds dozens of surprises. The New York
Times, pp. A1, A18.
Greeley, A. M. (1996). Religion as poetry. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Green, S. B., Akey, T. M., Flemming, K. K., Hershberger, S. L., & Marquis, J. G. (1997). Effect of the
number of scale points on chi-square fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation
Modeling, 2, 108120.
Hackney, C. H., & Sanders, G. S. (2003). Religiosity and mental health: A meta-analysis of recent
studies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 42, 4355.
Hill, P. C., & Hood, R. W. (1999). Measures of religiosity. Birmingham, AL: Religious Education Press.
Hoge, D. R. (1996). Religion in America: The demographics of belief and affiliation. In E. P. Shafranske
(Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of psychology (pp. 2141). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

268

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

Hood, R. W., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. (1996). The psychology of religion: An
empirical approach (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
Jalowiec, A., & Powers, M. J. (1981). Stress and coping in hypertensive and emergency room patients.
Nursing Research, 30, 1015.
James, W. (1961). The varieties of religious experience: A study in human nature. New York: Collier
Books. (Original work published 1902)
Jenkins, R. A., & Pargament, K. I. (1988). Cognitive appraisals in cancer patients. Social Science and
Medicine, 26, 625633.
Johnson, P. E. (1959). Psychology of religion. New York: Abingdon.
Keefe, F. J., & Dolan, E. (1986). Pain behavior and pain coping strategies in low back pain and
myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome patients. Pain, 24, 4956.
Koenig, H. G., George, L. K., & Siegler, I. C. (1988). The use of religion and other emotion- regulating
coping strategies among older adults. The Gerontologist, 28, 303310.
Ladd, K. L., & Spilka, B. (2002). Inward, outward, and upward: Cognitive aspects of prayer. Journal for
the Scientific Study of Religion, 41, 475484.
Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York: Springer.
Levin, J. S., & Taylor, R. J. (1997). Age differences in patterns and correlates of the frequency of prayer.
The Gerontologist, 37, 7588.
Loveland, G. G. (1968). The effects of bereavement on certain religious attitudes. Sociological
Symposium, 1, 1727.
Mason, J. H., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1988). A model of health status for rheumatoid arthritis:
A factor analysis of the arthritis impact measurement scales. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 31,
714720.
McCullough, M. E. (1995). Prayer and health: Conceptual issues, research review, and research agenda.
Journal of Psychology and Theology, 23, 1529.
Meenan, R. F., Gertman, P. M., Mason, J. H., & Dunaif, R. (1982). The arthritis impact measurement
scales: Further investigations of a health status measure. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 25, 10481053.
Pargament, K. I. (1990). God help me: Toward a theoretical framework of coping for the psychology of
religion. Research in the Social Scientific Study of Religion, 2, 195224.
Pargament, K. I. (1996). Religious methods of coping: Resources for the conservation and
transformation of significance. In E. P. Shafranske (Ed.), Religion and the clinical practice of
psychology (pp. 215239). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pargament, K. I. (1997). The psychology of religion and coping: Theory, research, practice. New York:
Guilford.
Pargament, K. I., & Hahn, J. (1986). God and the just world: Causal and coping attributions to God in
health situations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 25, 193207.
Pollner, M. (1989). Divine relations, social relations, and well-being. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 30, 92104.
Poloma, M. M., & Gallup, G. H., Jr. (1991). Varieties of prayer: A survey report. Philadelphia: Trinity
Press International.
Poloma, M. M., & Pendleton, B. F. (1991). The effects of prayer and prayer experiences on measures of
general well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 19, 7183.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance
structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for
developmental research (pp. 399419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Saudia, T. L., Kinney, M. R., Brown, K. C., & Young-Ward, L., Rev. (1991). Health locus of control and
helpfulness of prayer. Heart and Lung, 20, 6065.
Schneider, S., & Kastenbaum, R. (1993). Patterns and meanings of prayer in hospice caregivers: An
exploratory study. Death Studies, 17, 471485.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

269

Sethi, S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1993). Optimism and fundamentalism. Psychological Science, 4,
256259.
Shaw, R. J. (1992). Coping effectiveness in nursing home residents. Journal of Aging and Health, 4,
551563.
Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York: Free Press.
Snyder, C. R. (1998). A case for hope in pain, loss, and suffering. In J. H. Harvey, J. Omarzu, & E. Miller
(Eds.), Perspectives on loss: A sourcebook (pp. 6379). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
Snyder, C. R. (Ed.). (2000). Handbook of hope: Theory, measurement, and applications. San Diego,
CA: Academic.
Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J., & Michael, S. T. (1999). Hoping. In C. R. Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The
psychology of what works (pp. 205231). New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., et
al. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual differences measure
of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 570585.
Snyder, C. R., Sympson, S. C., Michael, S. T., & Cheavens, J. (2000). The optimism and hope
constructs: Variants on a positive expectancy theme. In E. C. Chang (Ed.), Optimism and pessimism
(pp. 103124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological perspective on
mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193210.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. D. (1994). Positive illusions and well-being revisited: Separating fact from
fiction. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 2127.
Thompson, S. C. (1981). Will it hurt less if I can control it? A complex answer to a simple question.
Psychological Bulletin, 90, 89101.
Turner, J. A., & Clancy, S. (1986). Strategies for coping with chronic low back pain: Relationship to
pain and disability. Pain, 24, 355364.
Welford, A. T. (1947). Is religious behavior dependent upon affect or frustration? Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 42, 310319.

APPENDIX
Multidimensional Prayer Inventory2
Gender: Male Female

Age: _______

Date: _______

Directions Part 1: The following questions have been written to better

understand private prayer. To assist you in answering these questions, scales
are provided which consist of several numbers along with corresponding
descriptions. Please circle ONE number on each scale that corresponds with
the description that best indicates how you have privately prayed during the
past month (other than during religious attendance). [In the questions that
refer to God, feel free to substitute other words or phrases such as Higher
Power, etc.]

2Based on results from the present study, the MPI has been slightly revised. The MPI and corresponding scoring key are available from the authors.

270

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

*** If you do not pray in private, please go directly to question #21. ***
1. During the average week of this past month, I prayed approximately:
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
No
days/
week

One
day/
week

Two
days/
week

Three
days/
week

Four
days/
week

Five
days/
week

Six
days/
week

Seven
days/
week

*** If you have not prayed during the past month, please go directly to
question #21. ***
2. On the day(s) that I did pray, I would estimate that I typically prayed
_______ time(s) during the course of the day. (Please fill in one number
that is your best estimate).
3. My prayers typically lasted for approximately:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A few
seconds

1/2
min

1
min

2
mins

35
mins

610
mins

1120
mins

21+
mins

Directions Part 2: Now, using the scale provided below, please answer the
following questions according to how often during the past month your
prayers included each of the activities described below. For example, if you
circle the number 4, this indicates that About half the time your prayers
during the past month included the described activity. (Note: Some prayers
combine these different activities. Also, do not be concerned if some items
appear to overlap with one another.)
Never

4.

Little
Some
of the
half the
time
time
1
2
3
I made specific requests.

5.

1
2
3
4
I offered thanks for specific things.

6.

1
2
3
4
5
6
I tried to be open to receiving new understanding of my problems.

7.

1
2
I worshiped God.
1

About
of the
time
4

Much
of the
time
5

Most
of the
time
6

All
of the
time
7

271

MULTIDIMENSIONAL PRAYER INVENTORY

8.

I admitted inappropriate thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

9.

1
2
3
4
5
I expressed my appreciation for my circumstances.

1
2
3
4
5
10. I tried to be receptive to wisdom and guidance.

1
2
3
11. I made various requests of God.

1
2
3
4
12. I confessed things that I had done wrong.

1
2
13. I praised God.

1
2
3
4
5
6
14. I opened myself up to God for insight into my problems.

1
2
3
4
5
15. I thanked God for things occurring in my life.

1
2
3
4
5
16. I asked for assistance with my daily problems.

1
2
3
4
17. I acknowledged faults and misbehavior.

1
2
3
4
5
18. I devoted time to honoring the positive qualities of God.
1

Directions Part 3: Please rate the degree to which prayers have an effect
using the following two questions (#s 19 and 20):
19. I believe that my prayers have an effect on my life.
1
Strongly
Disagree

4
Neutral

7
Strongly
Agree

20. I believe that my prayers have an effect on other peoples lives.

1
Strongly
Disagree

4
Neutral

7
Strongly
Agree

Directions Part 4: Please indicate on question # 21, where you would place
your beliefs:

272

LAIRD, SNYDER, RAPOFF, GREEN

21. My religious beliefs are most closely related to (Check One):

Catholicism ____
Protestantism:
Baptist ____

Episcopalian ____

Methodist ____

LDS (Mormon) ____

Lutheran ____

Presbyterian ____

Other Protestant (please specify) ____________________________

Judaism:
Conservative ____
Reformed ____
Orthodox ____
Buddhism ___ _
Hinduism ____
Muslim ____
New Age ____
Atheism ____
Agnosticism ____
Other (please specify) _____________________________