Disclosing a belief in conspiracy theories on an online dating profile generally reduces your chances of securing a match. People who endorse these ideas in their biographies encounter harsher judgments and fewer romantic prospects, though politically conservative individuals tend to be more forgiving of such disclosures. These findings were published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Conspiracy theories propose that groups of powerful people are secretly coordinating to achieve some hidden outcome at the expense of the public. Psychological research suggests that people endorse these narratives in an unconscious attempt to relieve feelings of anxiety or to regain a sense of control over unpredictable world events. Becoming consumed by these ideas carries serious interpersonal costs.

Voicing these beliefs can strain established social connections and alienate peers. Family members and friends often report reduced satisfaction in their relationships when a loved one begins endorsing hidden plots. Romantically, having a partner who adopts these worldviews often precedes increased conflict and a loss of intimacy.

Researchers wanted to know how these highly polarizing opinions affect the very beginning stages of a romantic connection. Online dating is a curated environment where individuals try to present their best qualities while simultaneously scanning others for warning signs. A misplaced word or controversial opinion can easily derail a potential spark before two people ever meet in person.

A scientific team led by Ricky Green, a psychology researcher at the University of Kent, suspected that conspiracy beliefs might function as a social stigma in this early dating context. Stigma refers to a profound discrediting by society, in which an individual is viewed as having an undesirable attribute. People usually try to hide stigmatized information from prospective partners to avoid immediate social exclusion.

At the same time, the research team recognized that human beings are drawn to those who view the universe through a similar lens. Psychologists call this shared reality theory, which describes the interpersonal connection that blooms when two people validate each other’s understanding of the world. Green and his colleagues tested whether political alignment might provide some protection against the social penalty of sharing a controversial worldview.

The research team conducted four consecutive experiments to test these dynamics. In the first two tests, they created fictitious online dating profiles that mimicked the layout of the popular application Tinder. Participants read short biographies that listed basic hobbies alongside a single experimental sentence.

Participants evaluated a profile belonging to a fictitious user. The biography section either stated that the COVID-19 pandemic was a hoax, the 2020 U.S. presidential election was rigged, or it included no conspiracy-related text at all. Alternatively, some users saw a profile explicitly denouncing those specific conspiracy theories.

Participants who viewed the profiles containing the pro-conspiracy statements rated the profile owner as less honest, less intelligent, and less kind. They reported lower intentions to befriend or romantically date the person compared to those who viewed the neutral or anti-conspiracy profiles. Denouncing a conspiracy theory did not negatively impact a profile, as those users received ratings very similar to the neutral control group.

The profiles sharing a conspiracy narrative were consistently rated as more unique than the alternative profiles. Many people adopt alternative narratives precisely because they want to feel apart from the herd. The findings suggest the disclosures successfully communicate individuality, but at the expense of basic relational traits like trustworthiness and warmth.

The political leanings of the participants modified these reactions. People with a liberal orientation judged the right-wing conspiracy profiles quite harshly. Politically conservative participants showed much more leniency toward the right-wing conspiracy profiles.

In the scenario involving the 2020 election, highly conservative participants even expressed a greater willingness to date the profile holder compared to someone expressing anti-conspiracy views. For these particular individuals, the shared political narrative appeared to override any general social disapproval attached to the belief.

The first two tests focused on theories traditionally associated with right-wing politics in the United States. Green and his team wanted to see if the same patterns held for theories usually embraced by left-leaning voters. They designed a new experiment featuring narratives about the oil industry to test this concept.

The scientists also manipulated the perceived plausibility of the narratives. Some participants viewed a highly implausible statement claiming that oil companies mutually decide who will become the U.S. president. Others viewed a relatively plausible statement suggesting that oil companies secretly agree to increase fuel prices.

Reactions varied based on how realistic the statement appeared. The profile endorsing the implausible presidential plot received low marks for social traits from participants, mirroring the reactions to the right-wing examples. Viewers largely shied away from the prospect of going on a date with this fictitious person.

The plausible fuel-price narrative did not trigger the same social penalty. Participants did not downgrade their dating intentions for the user sharing this belief. They even rated the profile holder as slightly more intelligent than the entirely neutral control profile.

Political orientation again shaped the responses, but not quite in the symmetrical way the researchers expected. Liberal participants continued to be relatively harsh toward the implausible left-wing narrative. Conservative participants, conversely, remained generally non-judgmental across all profile variations.

To mimic real-world interactions more closely, the scientists built a mock online dating application for their final experiment. Participants created profiles for themselves and then swiped on a series of ten potential matches. To simulate the rapid evaluations people make every day on their smartphones, the application allowed users to swipe left to reject a profile or right to express romantic interest.

Hidden among the decoy profiles was a target profile that featured either a politically neutral conspiracy theory about genetically modified foods, a left-wing theory about oil companies, or a right-wing theory about the 2020 election. A separate control group encountered a target profile with basic hobbies and no political statements. Participants reported their intentions for both brief flings and committed, long-term romantic relationships.

Participants swiped left more frequently on the profiles featuring the neutral and right-wing conspiracy theories. They also perceived the creators of these profiles as more anxious and narcissistic, while viewing them as less warm and competent overall. This held true for both short-term dating prospects and long-term relationship considerations.

The left-wing conspiracy profile managed to avoid this specific wave of rejection during the swiping exercise. Participants did not swipe left on the oil company narrative at rates different from the control profile. They did, however, rate the creator of that specific profile as slightly more narcissistic and reliant on intuition over logic after closer inspection.

As seen in the earlier studies, liberal participants drove much of the rejection toward the right-wing narrative. The data showed that conservative participants continued to display indifference, rather than active preference, for the conspiracy-sharing profiles in this simulated swiping environment. It appears that putting hidden-plot narratives in a dating biography signals a type of social nonconformity that primarily acts as a deterrent to the broader dating pool.

This body of work relied entirely on text-based profiles without accompanying photographs. Physical attractiveness dictates a massive portion of online dating success. A very attractive face could theoretically neutralize the social penalty of an unusual belief, especially for short-term romantic engagements where shared worldview might fall lower on a priority list.

The experimental pool was also skewed somewhat toward liberal participants. A sample with a higher concentration of participants from a wider variety of political backgrounds could reveal different acceptance thresholds for contentious political information. Finding out exactly how high those thresholds go will require further testing.

The study, “Conspiracy Theories and Online Dating: It’s a (Mis)match!,” was authored by Ricky Green, Lea C. Kamitz, Daniel Toribio-Flórez, Mikey Biddlestone, Frank Gasking, Robbie M. Sutton, and Karen M. Douglas.