Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41456911›Full record

ArticleCognitive science2025

Evidential Vulnerability of Religious Beliefs in the Context of Petitionary Prayers.

Ze Hong, Cheneryue Zhang, Anzhuo Wang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cognitive science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Ze HongDepartment of Sociology, University of Macau.ORCID 0000-0002-5343-3008
Cheneryue ZhangDepartment of Psychology, University of Macau.
Anzhuo WangIndependent Researcher.

Funding

John Templeton Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Petitionary prayers-requests made to a deity for specific outcomes-are widely practiced across religious traditions. While their efficacy remains a subject of theological debate, they exhibit remarkable resilience to disconfirmation. In three pre-registered studies-a field study in China and two global surveys via Prolific-we examined how religious believers (Christians, Muslims, local deity worshippers, and Hindus) update beliefs and behaviors in response to prayer successes or failures for both hypothetical co-religionists and themselves. Results indicate that belief updates generally follow a Bayesian pattern, with increases after prayer successes and decreases after failures, though with an asymmetry favoring belief reinforcement. Notably, participants from the Prolific sample exhibit sensitivity to the prior probability of prayed-for events, attributing greater belief increases to improbable outcomes. Muslims predict belief increases even after failed prayers, consistent with doctrines framing hardships as divine tests. Across traditions, believers estimate continued prayer regardless of past outcomes, with monotheists displaying stronger resilience. These findings illuminate the cognitive and cultural mechanisms that buffer religious beliefs against counter-evidence, contributing to debates on the evidential vulnerability of religious credence and its parallels with epistemically self-sealing belief systems.

Indexed as

CultureReligionReligion and PsychologyAdultBayes TheoremChinaFemaleHumansIslamMaleMiddle AgedYoung AdultBelief updatingCognitionCultureReligion

Identifiers

PMID41456911
PMCPMC12828874

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.