Alimenté par : Claudia (ADFI Alsace)
Cet outil s'appuie sur PubMind
PubMind est une plateforme collaborative de veille scientifique qui permet d'importer des publications depuis PubMed, de suivre leur avancement de lecture, d'en extraire les éléments méthodologiques clés (protocoles, variables, résultats) et de constituer une synthèse structurée afin de faciliter la réalisation de revues de littérature. Entièrement personnalisable, cet outil s'adapte aux thématiques de recherche de ses utilisateurs.
Nous l'avons configuré ici pour centraliser et analyser la littérature scientifique concernant les croyances, les traitements psychologiques, l'étude de la scrupulosité, ainsi que l'impact et la prise en charge des troubles liés aux dérives sectaires.
Dernière synchronisation le 05/06/2026
Cogn Sci . 2025;49 (12) :e70163
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.