The conversation begins with a video found online. One partner sees it as an important discovery; the other considers it an unreliable claim. Before long, they are no longer discussing the source of the information, but arguing about who is naïve, who understands nothing, and who refuses to listen.
This is an imagined situation, but it raises a real question: what happens to a relationship when disagreements about conspiracy theories become a recurring source of conflict?
New research examines how these conflicts are associated with relationship satisfaction, trust, and closeness.
What Did the Research Find?
Jakub Šrol, Dana Godžáková, and Karen Douglas surveyed 493 participants from the United Kingdom, recruited through the Prolific platform. Their paper was accepted on October 7, 2026, in Frontiers in Social Psychology. An abstract is currently available; the final formatted version has not yet been published.
More than one in five participants reported at least occasional conflicts with their current partner over differences in conspiracy beliefs. Around one-third reported such conflicts in previous relationships. More frequent conflicts were associated with lower relationship satisfaction, while the analyses also indicated associations with lower trust and closeness.
These findings rely on self-reported information, some of it based on recollection. They do not prove that conflicts over conspiracy theories cause dissatisfaction: existing relationship difficulties might also intensify disagreements. The quota sample does not justify applying these percentages to all couples.
When a Discussion Becomes a Personal Attack
Partners do not have to agree on every subject. However, it is worth noticing when a discussion about a claim becomes a judgment about someone’s character.
There is a difference between saying, “I don’t see reliable evidence for this,” and “You’re stupid for believing it.” The first leaves room to discuss the information. The second introduces an insult.
Similarly, “Why do you trust this source?” and “You never think for yourself” are very different ways to begin a conversation. In these examples, the issue extends beyond the disagreement itself to the way partners speak to each other.
Respecting a Person While Examining a Claim
Respecting a partner does not mean accepting every claim they make. It is possible to listen and then say clearly: “I understand that this matters to you, but I’m not convinced the information is accurate.”
A few specific questions may help when checking a claim: Who is the source? Is the original document or study available? Is there independent confirmation? What evidence would show that the claim is wrong?
These questions are useful only when there is a willingness to examine the information together. If the discussion turns into an exchange of dozens of videos that the other person is expected to watch immediately, partners can pause and agree to consider one specific claim later.
These are suggestions for conversation, rather than methods whose effectiveness was tested in the study.
Boundaries Matter
Every disagreement does not have to be resolved immediately. A partner might say: “I’m willing to talk, but not while we’re insulting each other,” or “We can discuss this later; right now, I’d like us to have a peaceful evening.”
Disagreements require particular attention when they affect shared decisions, such as spending money, raising children, or managing family responsibilities. In these situations, it can be useful to identify the specific decision and its consequences, rather than trying to settle an entire worldview at once.
For example: “We disagree about this claim, but we need to decide how to manage our shared money.” This brings the conversation back to something for which both partners are responsible.
What Happens Between Us While We Disagree?
The research gives us a reason to consider how we talk, alongside the question of who is right. Is there room to examine the evidence? Can we express disagreement without humiliation? Does the discussion leave us a way to reconnect?
The answers do not determine whether the disputed claim is true. They may, however, help partners understand how they approach it—and what the conversation brings to their relationship.
Source
Šrol, J., Godžáková, D., & Douglas, K. (2026). Divided by conspiracy beliefs: Interpersonal conflict and relationship quality. Frontiers in Social Psychology.
Comments