Religious Research Association, Inc.

Prayer and Relationship with God II: Replication and Extension of the Relational Prayer Model
Author(s): E. James Baesler
Source: Review of Religious Research, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Sep., 2002), pp. 58-67
Published by: Religious Research Association, Inc.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3512157
Accessed: 03/11/2009 07:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rra.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Religious Research Association, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Review of Religious Research.

http://www.jstor.org
 PRAYER AND RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD II:
REPLICATION AND EXTENSION OF THE RELATIONAL
PRAYER MODEL

E. JAMESBAESLER
OLDDOMINIONUNIVERSITY
REVIEWOF RELIGIOUSRESEARCH,2002, VOLUME44:1, PAGES58-67

Using the explanatoryframeworkof the RelationalPrayerModel, and samplesof

77 young adults (aged 18-34) and 54 middle-agedindividuals(aged 35-65) that
identifiedthemselvesas "Christian," correlationaland regressionanalyses indi-
cated that chronological age was positively related to frequency of engaging in
prayers of adoration, confession, thanksgiving,supplication,and contemplation
(r's=.14-.25). Age was also positively associated with the mystical experienceof
the holy/sacred duringprayer,positive affect duringprayer, and perceptions of
intimacywith God (r's=.18, .17, .29). Thebestpredictorof intimacywith Godfor
young adults was the prayer of thanksgivingwhile the prayer of adoration was
the best predictorfor middle-agedadults. Path analyses indicated that age had
more of an indirectthan a direct effect on relationalintimacywith God whilefre-
quencyof prayer and affect duringprayer had directeffects on relationalintima-
cy with God. Several suggestionsfor future researchwere offered.

ncient wisdom from a variety of religious traditions,representedby the perspec-

tives of individuals such as Thomas Keating (Trappistmonk), John Daido Loori
Roshi (Zen monk), FredericaMathewes-Green(Spiritualmother),and Sri Swami
Satchidananda(Yogi) (see Finley 1999), all testify that thereis "OneTruth,Many Paths."
Even within a given religious tradition,there are many spiritualpaths. For example, Hin-
duism'syoga traditionspeaksof spiritualpathsas the limbs or branchesof yoga (e.g., Hatha,
Mantra,Bhakti,Karma,andRaja;Slater1968), andin the Christiantradition,spiritualpaths
are sometimesrepresentedas various"rites"in Catholicism(e.g., Coptic,Eastern,Roman)
and "denominations"in the Protestantism(e.g., Lutheran,Pentecostal,Presbyterian).An
essential partof the spiritualpath for the majorityof the majorworld religions is prayer,
the spiritualcommunicationbetween a believer and God (Baesler 1997). Varioustypes,
styles, and methodsof prayercan be thoughtof as one or more attributesof the geograph-
ical compositionand surroundinglandscapeof a spiritualpath.Takentogether,the attrib-
utes of prayerrepresenta path of prayerwithin the largercontext of a spiritualpath. One
can imagine a multitudeof "prayerpaths":(a) steep, rocky,and curved,(b) level, smooth,
and straight,(c) lush, humid, and flowering, and (d) stark,dry,and empty.The destination
of these prayerpathshas been describedby the majorworldreligions as: heaven, kingdom
of God, Eden, bliss, peace, nirvana,andbeatific vision. In the pathmetaphor,prayerexists
in the context of a relationshipwith God, thatis, prayeris the communicationbetween the
believer and God while journeyingon the path.The presentinquiryexamines the connec-
tion between the qualityof a prayerpath and a believer's relationshipwith God at two dif-

58
ferenttemporalperiodsin the lifespanwithinthe frameworkof the Christiantradition.Next,
the landscaperelevantto these pathvariables(prayer,relationshipwith God, andtime) will
be surveyed.
The RelationalPrayerModel (RPM)'describesa theoreticallandscapein which prayer,
relationshipwith God, and time intersect on a common path. Within the RPM, different
types of prayerare representedas two broadpaths:active and receptive.The active prayer
path emphasizes the human activity of the pray-er, such as in petitioning, praising, and
thankingGod. Active prayersare categorizedby function and abbreviatedas ACTS:Ado-
ration,Confession,Thanksgiving,and Supplication(see similarclassificationsby Ai et. al.
1998; Brandtand Bicket 1993; and Kreeft 1991). In contrastto active prayer,receptive
prayeris characterizedby a contemplativeattitudeof openness, receptivity,and surrender,
resulting in experiences ranging from peaceful/quiet to rapture/ecstasy.At present, the
RPM'sdescriptionof the intensityof receptiveprayerdoes not addressotherpossible attrib-
utes of receptiveprayersuch as: drythirst,hunger,nothingness,emptiness,darkness,being,
and so forth, (see Dubay 1989; Keating 1994; Merton 1961). To develop a broaderspiritu-
al vocabularyfor describingthe subjectiveexperienceof receptiveprayer,four items asso-
ciated with Dubay, Keating, and Merton's spiritualvocabulary,four items related to the
affective dimension of prayerfound in priorresearch(Baesler 2001), and six items from
Hood's mysticism scale (Hood 1975) were incorporatedinto the measuresof prayerexpe-
riences in the presentstudy.
Thereis a developmentalprogressionfrom active to receptivetypes of prayersdescribed
by the RPM that covaries with chronologicalage. Six differentprayertypologies showed
this developmentalprayerprogression,orderedsequences of two or more types of prayer
thatindicatedthe maturationor evolution of an underlyingrelationaldynamic(see Baesler
1999). Thereis empiricalevidence thatsome developmentalprayerprogressionsarerelat-
ed to age. For example,Long, Elkind,and Spilka(1967) foundthe following developmental
prayer sequence within active types of prayerthat correspondedto age development of
Christianchildren:(a) ages 5 - 7 were characterizedby memorizedprayers,(b) ages 7 - 9
were mainly petitionaryprayers,and (c) ages 9 - 12 were predominantlyconversational
prayer.Moreover,a more recent pilot study of 66 Catholic adultsfound that their earliest
memoryof prayerwas associatedwith active ratherthanreceptivetypes of prayer(Baesler
2001). The tendency for Christianchildrento learn active ratherthan receptive prayersis
not necessarilya fixed chronologicaldevelopmentalsequence,since Halpin's(1984) ethno-
graphicnarrativeresearchhas shown that receptive/contemplativeprayercan be success-
fully taughtto childrenas young as 5 years old.
As children and adolescents develop theological knowledge and experiences over the
course of time, there should be a correspondingdevelopmentin theirprayerlife. Laterin
the lifespan, as Christianadults mature,there should be less of a focus on ego-centered
active types of prayer(e.g., prayersof petition)andmore of a focus on God-centeredrecep-
tive types of prayer(e.g., prayersof surrender).It is difficultto predictprecisely when dur-
ing the lifespan this transitionfrom active to receptive prayermight occur.There is some
consensus in the literatureon personalitytheoryindicatinga chronologicalage rangeasso-
ciated with sufficientspiritualmaturityto develop a contemplativeprayerlife. A review by
Coombs andNemeck (1982), comparingsix personalitytheories(those of Erikson,Fowler,
Kohlberg,Piaget, Selman,and Sevinson) with stages of the spiritualjourney,indicatedthat
afterage 35 (middle adultera) individualstypicallybegin contemplativeprayer.Until this

59
age, active types of prayerwere associated with differentage eras. For instance, the first
adultera, ages 20 - 35, was characterizedby simplified discursiveprayer.
The RPM model posits a numberof "transitionalvariables"accompanyingthe aging
process that could facilitate the progressionfrom active to receptive prayer.Examples of
transitionalvariablesinclude a numberof criticallife-changingevents thatcan re-framea
believer's spirituallife: a serious illness resultingin turningto God for the moralcourage
to enduresuffering,a financialcatastrophethat leads to complete dependenceon God for
the necessities of life, the radicalrestructuringof relationshipsthat accompaniesthe birth
of a child, divorce, or the deathof a close family memberthatcreatesa void only filled by
God's healing love, a spiritualconversionthatreawakensa sense of God's presencein all
of life, and so forth.Aging providesa multitudeof opportunitiesfor progressingfrom active
to receptiveprayersince the probabilityof experiencingone or more of the criticalevents
increaseswith life-experience.In addition,age also covaries with a believer's relationship
with God. As humanfriendshipsare createdand sustainedby increasingthe breadthand
depthof communication,so too the believer'srelationshipwith God develops with increas-
es in the breadth(differenttypes of prayer)and depth(high frequencyfor a particulartype
of prayer)of prayer.Since the developmentof the human-Divinerelationshiphas a tem-
poraldimension,chronologicalage shouldbe positively correlatedwith frequencyof com-
municationwith God and with a believer's relationshipwith God.
The empirical landscape related to age, frequency of prayer (FOP), and relationship
with God as "closeness"has been reviewed in Levin and Taylor's (1997) analysis of the
1988 GeneralSocial Survey (GSS) data for the U. S. adult population(n = 1,481). FOP
statistically covaried with age (r = .27, p < .001). As individuals age, the proportionof
adultsthat prayedat least daily increasedfor each of the four age cohorts (18-30 = 40%,
31-40 = 45%,41-60 = 57%,& 61+ = 72%).Moreover,feeling close to God was the strongest
covariateof prayerfrequencyfor each of the four age cohorts (r's = .55 - .88) when com-
paredto socio-demographic(age, gender,income, and urbanicity)and otherreligiousvari-
ables (organizationalreligiosity,theologicalconservatism,and mysticalexperience).Other
researchershave found similarresults with large databased samples. For instance, Gree-
ley (1995) found positive correlationsbetween FOP and age, and FOP and personalhap-
piness, and Poloma and Gallup (1991) found a positive correlationbetween frequencyof
meditativeprayerand closeness to God. The majorityof previous empiricalresearchon
the effects of prayer(see reviews by Baesler 2001; Francisand Evans 1995; and McCul-
lough 1995) is limited by the operationalizationof prayeras a single frequencyestimate
designed to representall types of prayeractivity in a believer's life.2 Such a global meas-
ure of prayerconceptually reduces the many paths of prayerto a single prayerpath. No
statisticaltest or rhetoricalstrategycan parcel out the effects of particulartypes of prayer
with a single estimate for FOP. Similarly,the common practiceof using of single item to
estimate a believer's relationshipwith God as feeling close to God (e.g., Levin and Tay-
lor 1997; Poloma and Gallup 1991) representsa very narrowbandwidthof possible rela-
tional dimensions.For instance,Burgoonand Hale (1984) identified 12 differentrelational
dimensions based on their review of the anthropological,psychotherapeutic,biological
displays, semanticmeaning,interpersonalevaluations,relationaldevelopment,and social
interactionliteratures.Researchby Baesler (2001) has shown that feeling close to God is
partof a largerrelationalintimacy construct.To addressthese methodologicalissues, the
present study will employ multiple measures of frequency for different types of prayer,

60
and multiple items to measurerelationalintimacy with God in additionto examining the
influence of age on FOP and relationalintimacy.
Based on the theoretical and empirical review of the prayerlandscape, the following
hypotheses and researchquestionsareproposedto examine the relationshipsbetween age,
FOP, and relationship with God. Some of these hypotheses and research questions are
designed to test the replicabilityof prayerresults from a previous study with college stu-
dents (Baesler 2001). Otherhypotheses were derivedfrom the theoreticallogic of transi-
tional variablesand the developmentalnatureof relationshipsthat accompanythe aging
process.
HI: Frequencyof prayer is positively correlatedwith age.
H2: Thesubjectiveevaluationof participant'smysticalexperienceduringprayerincreas-
es with age.
RQ1: Does subjective evaluations of participant'saffective experience duringprayer
vary by age?
H3: Relationshipwith God is positively correlatedwith age.
RQ2: Which type of prayerbest predicts relationshipwith God for young adults, and
for middle-agedadults?
H4: Age, frequency of prayer,and subjectiveexperiencesof God duringprayer (mysti-
cal experienceand affect) will be significantlylinked to relationshipwith God in a statis-
tical path model.

METHOD
Participants
Of the original 166 participantsin the study, 131 identifiedthemselves as some type of
"Christian"(58 %female).Among the Christiansub-sample,77 were college studentsaged
18 - 34 from a general educationcourse at an easternuniversitythatreceived extra credit
in exchangefor completinga 10-15 minuteprayersurvey.Fifty-fourof these studentsavailed
themselves of an option to obtainadditionalextracreditby recruitingone individualaged
35 + who was not currentlyattendingcollege to complete an identical survey outside of
class and place it in a sealed envelope. These later participantsrangedin age from 35-65
(68 % female).

Measures
Prayer.The frequency of engaging in particulartypes of active and receptive prayers
(adoration,confession, thanksgiving,supplication,and contemplation)was measuredusing
one 7-pointLikerttype scale for each of the five types of prayer.The instructionsread:"For
those times of 'privatepersonalprayer/meditation'with God, indicate your agreementor
disagreementwith the word/phrasebelow by circling a numberfrom 1 through7 where
1 = very stronglydisagree thatyou spend time in this type of prayer,and 7 = very strong-
ly agree thatyou spend time in this type of prayer."
Relationshipwith God as RelationalIntimacy.At least two dimensionsof intimacywith
God have been found in priorresearchthatpositively correlatedwith prayer:relationalinti-
macy and affective intimacy (Baesler 2001). The results for affective intimacy paralleled
thatof relationalintimacybut were of a lower magnitude,thus only relationalintimacywas
included as a measurefor relationshipwith God for the present study.Nine semanticdif-

61
ferential7-point scales were createdto measurerelationalintimacybased on Burgoonand
Hale's (1984) intimacydimensionof relationalcommunicationandPrager's(1995) review
of the theoreticaland empiricalliterature(over 65 studies) related to intimacy in human
relationships.Cronbach'sinter-itemalphacoefficient was .87 for six of the relationalinti-
macy items (deep/shallow, involved/apathetic,close/distant, honest/dishonest,coopera-
tive/competitive,and loving/hostile),justifying the creationof an averageglobal measure
for relationalintimacy with God.
MysticalExperienceduringPrayer.Six 7-point Likerttype items based on Reinertand
Stifler's (1993) three factor solution of Hood's mysticism scale were chosen to represent
participant'sexperiencesduringprayerthatwere: (a) intense mystical experiencesleading
to the perceptionof the unity of life, (b) insightful/meaningfulexperiencesthat cannotbe
expressedin languageor otherwisecommunicatedto others,and (c) religious experiences
associatedwith the termsholy and sacred.A principalcomponentsfactoranalysiswith vari-
max rotation,and a scree test, revealedthe predictedthreefactor solutionfor Hood's mys-
ticism scale foundby Reinertand Stifler:unity of life accountedfor 35.6 %of the variance,
mysticallanguageaccountedfor 24.5 %of the variance,andholy/sacredaccountedfor 18.6
% of the variance.Given these factor analyticfindings, and that each pair of items repre-
sentingthe threefactorswere reliable(r's = .72, .45, .39, p<.05), threeaverageswere com-
putedto provideindices for each of Hood's threemysticism factors.
AffectduringPrayer.Eight semanticdifferentialtype 7- point scales were createdbased
on descriptions of active and receptive prayerexperiences reportedby Baesler (2001),
Dubay (1989), Keating(1994), and Merton(1961). Since the eight items had a Cronbach's
inter-itemalphareliability coefficient of .89, the items were averagedand a global scale
was createdto representparticipant'sperceptionof theiraffectiveexperienceduringprayer.

RESULTS
CorrelationalAnalyses
As predictedby Hypothesis 1, therewas a positive linearrelationshipbetween age and
frequencyof engaging in all five types prayer.Pearsonproductmoment correlationcoef-
ficients between age and FOP were: .22 (adoration),.14 (confession), .16 (thanksgiving),
p < .05. Hypothesis2, predictingthat
.15 (supplication),and .25 (receptive/contemplative),
age would positively correlatewith mystical experience,was supportedfor the holy/sacred
factor,r(130) = .18, p < .05, but was not supportedfor the unity of life and mystical lan-
guage factors,p > .05. In responseto ResearchQuestion 1, subjectiveevaluationsof affect
duringprayerdid varyby age such thatas individualsaged the perceptionof positive affect
duringprayerincreased,r(130) = .17, p < .05. Age also positively correlatedwith relational
intimacywith God as predictedby Hypothesis3, r(130) = .29, p <.05.

Regression Analyses
To answer Research Question 2, which type of prayerbest predicts relationshipwith
God for differentages, two stepwiseregressionanalyseswere conductedusing all five types
of prayeras predictorvariablesand relationalintimacywith God as the criterionvariable.
In the first analysis a sub-sample of participants aged 18-34 was used to represent
the age category"youngadults."Resultsindicatedthattwo types of active prayersaccount-
ed for 32% (adjusted R2)of the variance in the relational intimacy with God measure,

62
F(2, 75) = 17.97, p < .05. The prayerof thanksgivingaccountedfor the 28% of the vari-
ance, SB = .50, t(76) = 5.13, p < .05, and the prayerof supplicationaccountedfor an addi-
tional4% of the variance,SB = .21, t(76) = 2.07, p < .05. In the secondanalysisa sub-sample
of participantsaged 35-65 was used to representthe category "middle-aged"adults. The
datarevealedthattwo types of active prayersaccountedfor 48% (adjustedR2)of the vari-
ance in the relationalintimacy with God measure, F(2, 52) = 24.68, p < .05. The prayer
of adoration accounted for 44% of the variance, SB = .47, t(53) = 3.39, p < .05, and
the prayer of thanksgiving accounted for an additional 4% of the variance, SB = .29,
t(53) = 2.08, p < .05.

Path Analysis
To test Hypothesis4, an a prioripathdiagramwas createdbased on the theoreticallink-
ages between age, affect, mystical experience, and relationalintimacy with God as pre-
dicted by the Relational PrayerModel. Path coefficients were computed as standardized
regression coefficients (beta weights) using several structuralequations to representthe
directand indirecteffects of the predictorvariables.Two variableswere modified to estab-
lish a uniformmetricfor the analysis.Frequencyof all five types of prayerwere combined
and averagedinto a single index representingparticipant'soverall prayerlife, and only the
holy/sacredmystical factorof mystical experienceduringprayerwas includedto represent
Hood's mysticism scale since the other two mystical factors did not correlate with age.
Results providedpartialsupportfor Hypothesis2. The directeffect of age on FOPwas sta-
tistically significant(SB=.19) while the directeffect of age for relationalintimacywith God
was not significant (SB=.11, p<.09). However,the overall effect for age on relationalinti-
macy with God was more than doubled when the indirect effects of age were combined
with the directeffects (.26). In addition,the directeffects for averageFOP's and for affect
duringprayerwere significantly linked to relational intimacy with God (SB's=.37, .41),
whereas the mystical experience of the holy/sacredwas not (SB=.07,p>.05).

DISCUSSION
Chronologicalage predictedvariationsin the prayerlife of believers and in their rela-
tionshipwith God. All of the bi-variatecorrelationalevidence from the 131 participantsin
the present sample of individualsaged 18-65 suggested that as individualsage, they tend
to: (a) Praymore frequently,specifically,to engage in greaterfrequencyof adoration,con-
fession, supplication,thanksgiving,andcontemplation,(b) Reportmoreexperiencesof pos-
itive affect duringprayer,including a greatersense of the holy/sacred, and (c) Rate their
relationshipwith God higheron severalitems associatedwith intimacy.These resultswere
qualifiedby the findings from the path analysis that indicatedthat the direct effect of age
on relationalintimacy with God was not statisticallysignificant;however, when the indi-
rect effects of age were addedto the direct effect of age, the total effect of age on intima-
cy with God was more than doubled.Thus, age does have an effect on relationalintimacy
with God, albeit more of an indirecteffect accordingto the datafrom the path analysis.
The magnitudeof the correlationsbetween age and frequencyof engaging in different
types of prayerwas small (.14-.25). However, the upperrange of these correlationswas
consistent with correlationalfindings between age and a single item estimate of overall
FOPfoundin largedata-basedstudiessuch as those of Levin andTaylor(1997) (r=.27) and

63
Greeley (1995) (r=.26). One advantageof measuringthe frequency of differenttypes of
prayer,instead of relying on a single global estimate, is the ability to make more precise
claims regardingthe relationshipbetween age and prayer.For instance, the present data
revealedsmallbut statisticallysignificantrelationshipsbetweenage andthe prayersof con-
fession, supplication,and thanksgiving(.14-.16), while the prayersof adorationand con-
templationhad smallbut strongercorrelationswith age (.22-.25).As individualsage, perhaps
the opportunitiesto experience "criticallife events" serve as catalysts for increasing the
frequencyof particularactive and receptive types of prayer.The strongercorrelationsfor
adoration(active prayer) and contemplation (receptive prayer), when compared to the
prayersof confession, supplication,and thanksgiving,are suggestive of such a possibility.
However, this hypothesis remainstentativeuntil futureresearchmeasuresthese "critical
life events"to determineif they facilitatethe developmentof particulartypes of prayer.
Previousresearchusing two college studentsamples(Baesler2001) foundthatfrequency
of prayerpredicteda believer's relationalintimacywith God. This finding was partlyrepli-
catedfor the young adultandmiddleage samplesin the presentstudy.The regressionanaly-
ses indicatedthat the primarypredictorsof relationalintimacy with God were the prayer
of thanksgivingfor the young adultsample,andthe prayerof adorationfor the middle aged
adultsample.The presentdata suggestedthatprayersof thanksgivinghave a more impor-
tantrole in relationalintimacyfor youngadultsthanfor middleaged adults,butpriorresearch
(Baesler2001) using comparablemeasuresfor FOP andrelationalintimacywith God found
that the prayerof adoration was the best predictorof relationshipwith God for two other
college studentsamples(n's=84, 132). Thus, the overalltrendin the dataamongthreesam-
ples of college studentsand one sample of middle aged adultsis clear: the prayerof ado-
rationis the best predictorof relationalintimacywith God. Thereis at least one explanation
for why adorationwas the best predictorof intimacywith God. Perhapsthe prayerof ado-
rationmay be relatedto an "attentionshift"from ego-centeredactive prayersof supplica-
tion, thanksgiving,andconfessionto the God-centeredactivityof adoration/worship. Future
researchwould need to explore the attentionprocesses duringdifferenttypes of prayerto
test such a hypothesis.
The RPMpredictsthatas believersage, they will developmorereceptivetypes of prayer
in additionto maintainingactive forms of prayer,and thatthese receptiveprayerswill pre-
dict relationalintimacybetterthanany othertype of prayer.The presentdataprovidedpar-
tial supportfor these predictions.As individualsage, they reportedincreasedfrequencyof
receptive/contemplativetypes of prayer(r=.25), but the prayerof adoration,and not the
prayerof contemplation,was the best predictorof relationalintimacywith God for the mid-
dle aged adultsample.Thereare at least two explanationsfor the laterfinding. One possi-
bility is the lack of multiplemeasuresfor receptivetypes of prayer(only one item measured
receptive/contemplative prayerin the presentstudy).Theremay be additionaltypes of recep-
tive/contemplativeprayerindicative of relationalintimacy with God that was not tapped
by the presentreceptive/contemplativeprayermeasure.Futurequalitativeresearchefforts
could develop a spiritualvocabularyto describe different types of receptive prayerand
determineif these prayerspredict relationalintimacy with God for differentage groups.
Second, the restrictedage rangeof the presentsample(maximumage=65) does not address
the impactof receptive/contemplativeprayerfor those in a seniorage range(ages 66-90+).
Futureresearchmight investigateif believers in the senior age rangehave more developed
lives of receptive/contemplativeprayer,and how these prayersmight be related to rela-

64
tionalintimacywith God. Inclusionof a seniorage groupwould providean additionalcom-
parisongroupfor the young adult and middle-agedsamples, thus providinga broadertest
of the age hypothesis in the RPM.
One limitationof the presentstudy is relatedto the temporalnatureof the datacollect-
ed. The presentdata are cross-sectionalin natureand not longitudinal.This is a limitation
since it cannot be determined,without follow-up data collection, if the young adult age
cohortswill praymorefrequentlyin the futureyearsas indicatedby theirmiddleage cohorts.
Longitudinalage-period-cohortanalyses of FOP and relationalintimacy with God could
resolve this limitationby testing for temporaltrendsin data collected with the same sub-
jects. However, this endeavorwould literally be a lifetime project. Second, the natureof
the present cross-sectional data is not compatible with establishing a directional causal
claim for the relationshipsbetween age, FOP,and relationalintimacy with God. Thus, the
correlationsin the path analysis arejust that, correlations,not causal links. It may be that
FOP facilitatesintimacywith God, or thatintimacywith God facilitatesFOP,or theremay
be a non-recursive,mutuallycausal relationshipbetween the two variables.A more mod-
est proposalfor futureresearchwould be to conductan experimentalstudywhereFOP and
relationalintimacywith God are measuredover multipletime periods,perhapsin the con-
text of teachingdifferenttypes of prayerin a seminaror workshopsetting,to determinethe
directionalityof the relationshipbetween FOP and relationalintimacywith God. Thus far,
basedon the presentfindings,thereare statisticallysignificantpositive correlationsbetween
age and FOP,age and relationalintimacy,and FOP and relationalintimacy.

ENDNOTES
1. Originally,the Relational PrayerModel (RPM) was entitled, InterpersonalChristian
PrayerModel (ICPM) (Baesler 1999). In terms of the historical development of the
model, the argumentsfor studyingpersonalprayeras a type of interpersonalcommuni-
cation was advancedby Baesler (1997), and subsequentlya theoreticalmodel (ICPM)
was createdto examine "interpersonalprayer"using interpersonalhumancommunica-
tion as a kind of metaphorfor understandingsome aspectsof prayer(Baesler 1999). The
revision in the title of the model was first noted by Baesler (2001) in an empiricaltest
of the RPM. The revised title of the model as RPM betterreflects an emphasison spir-
itual communicationin the context of any relationshipwith God. This allows for the
possibility of expandingthe boundaryconditions of the model beyond the dyadic (i.e.,
interpersonal)and Christiancontexts. Moreover,the use of the term "relational"rather
than "interpersonal" avoids the assumptionof identifying "interpersonal"as communi-
cation between two humanpersons ratherthan between two "relationalbeings" as the
currenttitle suggests. The presentinvestigationrepresentsthe second empiricaltest of
the RPM.

2. One exception to the trendof using a single item to representall types of prayeris Polo-
ma andGallup's(1991) measurementof four differentprayerclusters(ritual,petitionary,
conversational,and meditative).The difficulty with this approachhowever is that the
clustersarenot mutuallyexclusive since they combineuniquefunctionsof prayerunder
a common cluster.For example, conversationalprayerincludedpetitionaryprayerand
prayersof thanksgiving,and meditativeprayercombinedfeaturesof active and recep-
tive prayers.In addition,items representingthe four prayerclusters were measuredby
65
 asking respondentsto indicate if they do or do not pray in a particularmanner.Unfor-
tunately,this type of nominallevel data(yes/no responseformat)does not provide spe-
cific informationaboutthe frequencyof differenttypes of prayer.

Contributedby E. JamesBaesler,Departmentof CommunicationandTheatreArts, Old

DominionUniversity,Norfolk,VA23529, (757) 683-3828/4866.e-mail:jbaesler@odu.edu

REFERENCES
Ai, Amy R., RuthE. Dunkle,ChristopherPeterson,and StevenF. Bolling. 1998. "TheRole
of PrivatePrayerin Psychological Recovery Among Mid-life and Aged PatientsFol-
lowing CardiacSurgery."Gerontologist.38:591-601.
Baesler, E. James. 1997. "Interpersonal
ChristianPrayerand Communication."Journalof
Communicationand Religion. 20:5-13.
Baesler,E. James. 1999. "A Model of InterpersonalChristianPrayer."Journalof Commu-
nication and Religion. 22:40-64.
Baesler,E. James.2001. "Prayerand Relationshipwith God I: Two EmpiricalTests of the
RelationalPrayerModel." Unpublishedms., Old Dominion University.
Brandt,RobertL., and Zenas J. Bicket. 1993. The SpiritHelps Us Pray: A Biblical Theol-
ogy of Prayer. Springfield,MO: Logion Press.
Burgoon,Judee K., and JeroldL. Hale. 1984. "TheFundamentalTopoi of Relational
Communication."CommunicationMonographs.51:193-214.
Coombs, Marie Theresa, and Francis K. Nemeck. 1982. The Spiritual Journey: Critical
Thresholdsand Stages of Adult SpiritualGenesis. Wilmington,DE: Michael Glaizer.
Dubay,Thomas. 1989. Fire Within.San Francisco:IgnatiusPress.
Finley, Mitch. 1999. Prayerfor People Who Thinktoo Much:A Guide to Everyday,Any-
where Prayerfrom the World'sFaith Traditions.Woodstock,VT: SkyLightPaths Pub-
lishing.
Francis, Leslie J., and Thomas E. Evans. 1995. "The Psychology of ChristianPrayer:A
Review of EmpiricalResearch."Religion. 25:371-388.
Greeley,AndrewM. 1995. Religion as Poetry. New Brunswick,NJ: TransactionPublish-
ers.
Halpin,Marlene. 1984. Puddles of Knowing:Engaging Childrenin OurPrayer Heritage.
Dubuque,IA: Wm. C. Brown.
Hood, RalphW., Jr. 1975. "TheConstructionand PreliminaryValidationof a Measureof
ReportedMystical Experience."Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion. 14:29-41.
Keating,Thomas. 1994. Intimacywith God. NY: Crossroad.
Kreeft,Peter. 1991. Prayer: Conversingwith God. GrandRapids,MI: Zondervan.
Levin, JeffreyS., and RobertJ. Taylor.1997. "Age Differences in Patternsand Correlates
of the Frequencyof Prayer."The Gerontologist.37:75-88.
Long, Diane, David Elkind,andBernardSpilka. 1967. "TheChild'sConceptionof Prayer."
Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion. 6:101-109.
McCullough,Michael E. 1995. "Prayerand Health:ConceptualIssues, ResearchReview,
and ResearchAgenda."Journal of Psychology and Theology.23:15-29.
Merton,Thomas. 1961. New Seeds of Contemplation.NY: New Directions.
Poloma, Margaret,and George Gallup, Jr. 1991. Varieties of Prayer: A Survey Report.
Philadelphia:TrinityPress.
66
Prager,KarenJ. 1995. ExistingConceptionsof Intimacy:An Overview.NY: GuilfordPress.
Reinert, Duane F., and Kenneth R. Stifler. 1993. "Hood's Mysticism Scale Revisited: A
Factor-analyticReplication."Journalfor the ScientificStudyof Religion. 32:383-388.
Slater,Wallace. 1968. Raja Yoga.Wheaton,IL: TheosophicalPublishing.

67