Revealing your belief in conspiracy theories in your online dating profile generally makes you less likely to secure a match. Those who espouse these ideas in their biographies face harsher judgment and less chance of love, while politically conservative people tend to be more tolerant of such exposure. These findings show that Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Conspiracy theories propose that a group of powerful people secretly collaborate to achieve some hidden outcome at the expense of the public. Psychological research shows that people unconsciously endorse these stories to reduce feelings of anxiety or regain a sense of control over unpredictable world events. Indulging in these thoughts has serious interpersonal costs.
Expressing these beliefs can strain established social ties and alienate peers. Family and friends often report that their relationship satisfaction decreases when their loved one begins supporting hidden conspiracies. Romantically, having a partner who adopts this worldview is often preceded by increased conflict and loss of intimacy.
Researchers wanted to know how these highly polarized opinions affect the very early stages of a romantic relationship. Online dating is a highly selective environment where individuals seek to present their best qualities while simultaneously scanning others for red flags. Misspoken words or controversial opinions can easily ruin a potential spark before the two of you actually meet.
A scientific team led by psychology researcher Ricky Green from the University of Kent suspected that conspiracy theories functioned as a social bias in this early dating context. Stigma refers to a significant loss of trust by society in which an individual is considered to have undesirable characteristics. People typically try to hide stigmatizing information from prospective partners to avoid immediate social exclusion.
At the same time, the research team realized that humans are attracted to people who view the universe through a similar lens. Psychologists call this the shared reality theory. This describes the interpersonal relationship that blossoms when two people confirm each other’s understanding of the world. Green and his colleagues tested whether political alliances could provide some protection from the social penalties of sharing a controversial worldview.
The research team conducted four consecutive experiments to test these dynamics. For the first two tests, we created a fictitious online dating profile that mimicked the layout of the popular application Tinder. Participants read a short biography that lists their basic hobbies along with an experimental passage.
Participants rated profiles belonging to fictitious users. Biography sections either stated that the COVID-19 pandemic was a hoax and the 2020 U.S. presidential election was fraudulent, or contained no conspiracy-related text at all. Or someone saw a profile that specifically condemned a particular conspiracy theory.
Participants who viewed profiles containing pro-conspiracy statements rated the profile owners as less honest, less intelligent, and less kind. They reported less intention to be friends with that person or go on a romantic date than those who viewed a neutral or anti-conspiracy profile. These users had very similar ratings to the neutral control group, so accusing them of conspiracy theories had no negative impact on their profiles.
Profiles that shared conspiracy stories were consistently rated as more unique than alternative profiles. Many people adopt a different narrative simply because they want to feel separate from the herd. The findings suggest that disclosure successfully conveys personality, but at the expense of basic relationship characteristics such as trustworthiness and warmth.
These responses varied depending on the political leanings of the participants. Liberal-minded people judged right-wing conspiracy theories quite harshly. Politically conservative participants had a much more tolerant attitude toward right-wing conspiracy theories.
In the 2020 election scenario, highly conservative participants even expressed a higher willingness to date profile holders compared to those who expressed anti-conspiracy theories. For these particular people, a shared political narrative seemed to override the general social disapproval that accompanied their beliefs.
The first two tests focused on theories traditionally associated with right-wing politics in the United States. Greene and his team wanted to see if the same pattern held for theories typically accepted by left-leaning voters. To test this concept, they designed a new experiment featuring a story about the oil industry.
The scientists also manipulated perceptions of the plausibility of the stories. Some participants received highly implausible statements claiming that oil companies mutually decide who becomes President of the United States. Some saw this as a relatively plausible suggestion that oil companies were secretly agreeing to raise fuel prices.
Reactions varied depending on how realistic the statement was. Profiles supporting implausible presidential conspiracies were rated lower by participants as a social trait, reflecting their reactions to right-wing examples. Many viewers shied away from the possibility of dating this fictional character.
The plausible fuel price narrative did not provoke similar social penalties. Participants did not lower their dating intentions toward users who shared this belief. They even rated the profile holder to be slightly more intelligent than a completely neutral control profile.
Political orientation once again shaped responses, but not in the completely symmetrical way the researchers expected. Liberal participants continued to be relatively harsh on discredited left-wing claims. Conversely, conservative participants were generally less judgmental across profile changes.
To more closely mimic real-world interactions, the scientists built a mock online dating application as a final experiment. Participants created a profile for themselves and swiped through a series of 10 potential matches. To simulate the quick ratings people make every day on their smartphones, the application now allows users to swipe left to reject a profile or swipe right to express romantic interest.
Hidden within the decoy profiles were target profiles featuring either politically neutral conspiracy theories about genetically modified foods, left-wing theories about oil companies, or right-wing theories about the 2020 election. Another control group encountered a target profile with basic hobbies and no political statements. Participants reported intentions for both short-term relationships and serious, long-term romantic relationships.
Participants were more likely to swipe left on profiles that featured neutral or right-wing conspiracy theories. They also perceived the creators of these profiles to be more anxious and narcissistic, but less warm and competent overall. This applies to both short-term dating prospects and long-term relationship considerations.
Left-wing conspiracy profiles managed to avoid this particular wave of rejection during the swipe exercise. Participants did not swipe left on the oil company narrative at a different rate than the control profile. However, upon closer inspection, the creator of that particular profile was rated as somewhat narcissistic, relying more on intuition than logic.
As seen in earlier studies, liberal participants elicited much of the rejection response to right-wing discourse. The data showed that conservative participants continued to show indifference, rather than active preference, toward conspiracy-sharing profiles in this simulated swiping environment. Including hidden stories in dating biographies seems to suggest a kind of social misfit that primarily acts as a deterrent to the broader dating pool.
This body of work relied entirely on text-based profiles with no accompanying photos. Physical attractiveness is a huge part of online dating success. A highly attractive face could, in theory, neutralize the social penalty due to abnormal beliefs. This is especially true in short-term romantic relationships where a shared worldview may be low on the priority list.
The experimental subjects were also slightly biased toward liberal participants. A more concentrated sample of participants with different political backgrounds may reveal different acceptance thresholds for controversial political information. Further testing is needed to know exactly how high these thresholds are.
The study, “Conspiracy theories and online dating: It’s a (mis)match!”, was authored by Ricky Green, Lee C. Kamitz, Daniel Toribio-Flores, Mikey Biddlestone, Frank Gasking, Robbie M. Sutton, and Karen M. Douglas.
