The value of thoughts and prayers

Offering “thoughts and prayers” has become a standard response from both US policy makers and the public to major catastrophes—including hurricanes, wildfires, mass shootings, and disease outbreaks. Despite the frequent usage of these gestures on behalf of people experiencing hardship, the value of thoughts and prayers to recipients remains unknown. In the United States, this knowledge vacuum exacerbates public debate about the value of thoughts and prayers. Critics argue that these gestures are meaningless and can reduce material help or structural reforms aimed at mitigating natural and social disasters. However, studies show that people often find emotional comfort in social support (1, 2). Christians frequently seek others’ prayers during difficult times, believing they may have healing powers (3). Less is known about the perceived value of receiving supportive thoughts.

Because there is no market for intercessory thoughts and prayers (i.e., thoughts and prayers conducted on behalf of others), their value cannot be inferred from existing prices. Instead, values may be assessed by willingness to pay (WTP), a measure that captures the net monetary value of perceived costs and benefits (4, 5). Recipients may expect direct benefits (increased health or wealth) or direct costs (reduced material gain) to result from either thoughts or prayers. Recipients may also experience hedonic gains (feelings of hope or closeness to others) or distressing costs (anger, annoyance) from such gestures.

We designed an incentivized experiment to elicit religious and nonreligious Americans’ WTP for intercessory thoughts and prayers. The experiment was carried out shortly following Hurricane Florence (September 2018) and targeted the population in North Carolina, the state most affected by the natural disaster. Participants (n = 482) were recruited through Qualtrics and received their standard payment plus an additional $5 to be used in the experiment. Religious participants identified as Christian and believed in God; nonreligious participants identified as either atheist or agnostic, and denied or were unsure of God’s existence. We excluded those of other religious beliefs at the recruitment stage. Participants were asked whether they were affected by Hurricane Florence, and if so, to categorize and describe their hardship. If they were not affected by Florence, they were asked to categorize and describe another hardship from the previous year. (Around 30% of participants were affected by Florence. They were no different in their WTP from those not affected [t test: t(436) = −1.08, P = 0.282; Wilcoxon Mann–Whitney test: z(436) = −0.956, P = 0.339].) Participants were told that a stranger would receive their description and offer a gesture of support in response. We applied a between-subjects study design and Christians and nonreligious participants were randomized into 1 of 4 conditions (C1 to C4). They participated in a WTP-elicitation mechanism where they could exchange some or all of their $5 for supportive thoughts from a Christian stranger (C1), thoughts from an atheist stranger (C2), prayers from a Christian stranger (C3), or prayers from a priest (C4). Hence, participants could receive prayers only from Christians, while thoughts could be received from either Christian or nonreligious strangers.

Our experiment participants were offered thoughts and prayers. We also recruited senders of thoughts and prayers via Amazon Mechanical Turk—except the priest, who was recruited in the first author’s local community. Participants and senders did not interact.

We used an incentivized multiple price list (MPL) to elicit participants’ WTP (6). The MPL entailed 13 choice pairs where participants chose between two alternatives: an intercessory gesture and a monetary gain, or no gesture and a monetary gain. The monetary amount varied across alternatives and choice pairs, ranging from $0 to $5. The MPL enabled participants to assign both positive and negative WTP (7). Participants learned the computer would choose one choice pair at random and that their preferred alternative in that choice pair would be implemented, i.e., determine their payment. To prevent altruism from impacting participants’ valuation of thoughts/prayers, they were informed that their choices did not impact senders’ payments.

We chose to elicit WTP with an MPL for its benefits over alternative methods, such as experimental auctions—it is easy to understand and it is easy for participants to see that it is in their best interest to state truthful values (8). The MPL also has drawbacks, however, which we took measures to address. First, it measures participants’ WTP in intervals rather than points. Participants whose WTP fell within certain intervals were assigned the midpoint values of those intervals. Because the end intervals of MPLs have no upper/lower limits (here, end values imply a WTP of $5 or above, and −$5 or below), end values must be imputed (7). Our primary analysis uses the most conservative measure of WTP, imputing end values equal to −$5 and $5. Second, MPLs enable participants to state internally inconsistent values. A participant may state that s/he is willing to forgo $2 to receive prayers, but unwilling to forgo a smaller amount (e.g., $1). Inconsistent answers can be the result of filling out the survey incorrectly, inattention, or misunderstanding the questions. Our analysis includes all participants whose WTP was internally consistent (n = 436/482; C1, n = 105; C2, n = 103; C3, n = 119; C4, n = 109).

Informed consent was obtained from participants and senders. This study was approved by the University of Wyoming (#20180921LT02114) and Denison University (FA18 #10) institutional review boards.