Findings show people who attended services in-person showed higher heart rates during worship and reported greater feelings of transcendence.
Van Cappellen is an Associate Research Professor in Duke University’s Social Science Research Institute and directs the Belief, Affect, and Behavior Lab and the Interdisciplinary Behavioral Research Center (IBRC); Davis is a Professor of Psychology at Wheaton College and directs the Psychology and Spirituality Research Lab (PSRL).
In the study, each participant attended two Sunday services, one in person and one online, in randomized order. Participants wore Fitbit trackers during both services to measure heart rate and calories burned, and they completed post-service questionnaires assessing social, emotional, and spiritual outcomes, including perceived transcendence, shared identity with the congregation, and closeness with God.
On average, in-person attendance was associated with greater physiological engagement: heart rate during the service averaged 84 beats per minute in person compared with 79 beats per minute online, and calorie expenditure averaged 161 in person compared with 127 online.
Self-reports followed a similar pattern. Relative to in-person worship, virtual services were associated with lower reported experiences of transcendence and emotions, weaker shared identity with the congregation, and reduced closeness with God. Notably, overall wellbeing scores were comparable across formats, suggesting that virtual worship may deliver certain benefits while differing in the immediate experiential and social dimensions captured in this study.
Van Cappellen has emphasized that these findings should not be read as a blanket dismissal of virtual worship, but rather as evidence of meaningful differences between formats. In an interview with Religion News Service, she said: “We’re not suggesting that virtual worship is bad, or that it doesn’t bring any benefits. What we’re showing is that it doesn’t replicate exactly the in-person experience. There are differences.”
She also framed the study as a starting point useful for clarifying what may change when worship becomes screen-based, but not intended to settle the question for every congregation, tradition, or style of online service.
The question has practical significance because virtual worship expanded rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic and remains widely available. In the wake of that shift, many congregations maintained online options even after in-person worship resumed.
A 2023–24 Pew Research Center study found that 23% of Americans watched religious services online or on TV at least once a month, while 76% did so a few times a year or less; one-third attended religious services in person at least once a month, and 67% did so a few times a year or less.
With online services now a stable part of congregational life, social scientists have strong reasons to ask not only whether virtual worship “works,” but what it changes, and what design choices might bring virtual participation closer to the aspects of worship that seem to matter for connection and spiritual experience.
Van Cappellen has pointed to potential design features that could strengthen virtual experiences. For example, online services might benefit from adding a chat function so worshippers can greet one another, and additional camera angles might help online worshippers see fellow congregants in the pews, not only the person or people leading the service.
These examples reflect a broader hypothesis that the social and embodied components of worship are not incidental: they may be part of the mechanism through which worship influences emotion, identity, and perceived closeness, especially when worship is communal and participatory rather than purely observational.
