The ‘brain-opioid theory of social attachment’ (BOTSA) has been proposed as providing the neurobiological underpinnings of social bonding. Endorphins are activated in the brain by a variety of social activities, including social touch, laughter, singing, dancing and feasting. Several of these seem to be involved in the processes of bonding whole communities by allowing large numbers of individuals to be bonded simultaneously. It has been suggested that religious rituals may also be part of this bonding toolkit. We tested this hypothesis in a series of field studies carried out during religious rituals in the UK and Brazil. We found that taking part in the service increased both pain threshold (a standard proxy for endorphin activation) and positive affect, and that between them these enhanced the sense of bonding to the religious group. The results suggest that one of the key functions of religious ritual may be to increase community bonding.

Religious rituals are universal human practices that play a seminal role in community bonding. In two experiments, we tested the role of mu-opioids as the active factor fostering social bonding. We used a mu-opioid blocker (naltrexone) in two double-blind studies of rituals from different religious traditions. We found the same effect across both studies, with naltrexone leading to significantly lower social bonding compared with placebo. These studies suggest that mu-opioids play a significant role in experiences of social bonding within ritual contexts.

Religious rituals are associated with health benefits, potentially produced via social bonding. It is unknown whether secular rituals similarly increase social bonding. We conducted a field study with individuals who celebrate secular rituals at Sunday Assemblies and compared them with participants attending Christian rituals. We assessed levels of social bonding and affect before and after the rituals. Results showed the increase in social bonding taking place in secular rituals is comparable to religious rituals. We also found that both sets of rituals increased positive affect and decreased negative affect, and that the change in positive affect predicted the change in social bonding observed. Together these results suggest that secular rituals might play a similar role to religious ones in fostering feelings of social connection and boosting positive affect.

No abstract

There is a push in psychology toward more transparent practices, stemming partially as a response to the replication crisis. We argue that the psychology of religion should help lead the way toward these new, more transparent practices to ensure a robust and dynamic subfield. One of the major issues that proponents of Open Science practices hope to address is researcher degrees of freedom (RDF). We pre-registered and conducted a systematic review of the 2017 issues from three psychology of religion journals. We aimed to identify the extent to which the psychology of religion has embraced Open Science practices and the role of RDF within the subfield. We found that many of the methodologies that help to increase transparency, such as pre-registration, have yet to be adopted by those in the subfield. In light of these findings, we present recommendations for addressing the issue of transparency in the psychology of religion and outline how to move toward these new Open Science practices.

There is a push in psychology toward more transparent practices, stemming partially as a response to the replication crisis. We argue that the psychology of religion should help lead the way toward these new, more transparent practices to ensure a robust and dynamic subfield. One of the major issues that proponents of Open Science practices hope to address is researcher degrees of freedom (RDF). We pre-registered and conducted a systematic review of the 2017 issues from three psychology of religion journals. We aimed to identify the extent to which the psychology of religion has embraced Open Science practices and the role of RDF within the subfield. We found that many of the methodologies that help to increase transparency, such as pre-registration, have yet to be adopted by those in the subfield. In light of these findings, we present recommendations for addressing the issue of transparency in the psychology of religion and outline how to move toward these new Open Science practices.

Authors have highlighted for decades that sample size justification through power analysis is the exception rather than the rule. Even when authors do report a power analysis, there is often no justification for the smallest effect size of interest, or they do not provide enough information for the analysis to be reproducible. We argue one potential reason for these omissions is the lack of a truly accessible introduction to the key concepts and decisions behind power analysis. In this tutorial, we demonstrate a priori and sensitivity power analysis using jamovi for two independent samples and two dependent samples. Respectively, these power analyses allow you to ask the questions: “How many participants do I need to detect a given effect size?”, and “What effect sizes can I detect with a given sample size?”. We emphasise how power analysis is most effective as a reflective process during the planning phase of research to balance your inferential goals with your available resources. By the end of the tutorial, you will be able to understand the fundamental concepts behind power analysis and extend them to more advanced statistical models.

Background: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wellbeing of parents and children in the general population has been well-documented. This study investigated wellbeing in parents of and children with rare neurogenetic conditions, who may have been at greater risk of negative impact on mental health and behavioural challenges during the first UK lockdown. Method: An online survey data was completed by parents of children with a rare neurogenetic condition between May and July 2020 (CoIN sample; N=123) and compared to responses from parents of children in the wider population (Co-SPACE sample; N=2121). Measures of wellbeing included the 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale for parents and the Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire for child behaviour. Results: Parent anxiety was significantly higher in CoIN (MedianAnx = 4) than Co-SPACE (MedianAnx = 2). Parent-rated internalising, externalising and impact of child behavioural difficulties were also significantly higher in CoIN (MedianInt = 9.5; MedianExt = 11, MedianImp = 8) than Co-SPACE (MedianInt = 6; MedianExt = 7, MedianImp = 1). Only group differences in child behaviour and impact remained significant when matching for demographic factors and were also larger than previously reported pre-pandemic differences. Discussion: Families of children with rare neurogenetic conditions reported poorer wellbeing during the first lockdown compared to the wider population, affecting both parents and children. This likely reflects pre-existing complex needs, which should be prioritised during future national crises. Investigation of changes in wellbeing in this population over the course of the pandemic is warranted.