The psychological drive for structure predicts conspiracy thinking

People who have a strong psychological need to find patterns and strict rules in their everyday lives are more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. A recent study published in the journal Cognitive Processing revealed that this preference for rigid structure can lead people to accept conspiratorial ideas, even when they possess strong scientific reasoning skills. These results suggest that fact-checking alone might not be enough to change minds, as conspiracy theories offer a comforting sense of order to those who seek it.

Conspiracy theories often present straightforward explanations for chaotic global events. They tend to blame corruption or malicious intent for complex world problems. This offers a single narrative that can make the world feel easier to comprehend.

Past research has usually suggested that people fall for these theories because they lack analytical thinking skills. Psychologists have often assumed that individuals with lower levels of education or poorer critical reasoning abilities simply fail to evaluate the information they read.

But recent investigations revealed a paradox regarding people with elevated autistic traits. These individuals generally prefer analytical and logical thinking, yet previous studies showed they were actually more prone to endorsing conspiracy theories. They also exhibited a strong bias against counterevidence, meaning they struggled to change their minds when presented with facts that debunked their beliefs.

Neophytos Georgiou, a psychology researcher at Flinders University in Australia, wanted to understand this contradiction. Georgiou and his team suspected that a specific cognitive trait, rather than a lack of intelligence, was driving this vulnerability.

Free daily newsletter

They focused on a concept called systemizing. Systemizing is a psychological term for the drive to analyze information, identify patterns, and organize the world into strict, predictable rules. People with high systemizing tendencies find it difficult to accept that events happen randomly, preferring to uncover a logical cause for every occurrence.

Georgiou proposed the hyper-systemizing hypothesis to explain the link between autistic traits and conspiracy beliefs. He theorized that individuals who strongly desire structure might naturally gravitate toward conspiracy theories. These theories offer neat, interconnected explanations that satisfy their need for a predictable world.

“People often assume conspiracy beliefs form because someone isn’t thinking critically,” says Georgiou. “But our findings show that for those who prefer systematic structure, conspiracy theories can feel like a highly organised way to understand confusing or unpredictable events.”

To test this hypothesis, the research team designed two separate studies. The first study involved 412 adults from the general population, mostly residing in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Europe. Participants completed a series of online questionnaires and tasks to measure their traits and thinking styles.

The researchers assessed participants for autistic traits and systemizing tendencies using standard psychological surveys. They also measured their scientific reasoning abilities by asking them to evaluate scenarios involving core scientific concepts. This allowed the team to see if a basic misunderstanding of the scientific method was to blame for their beliefs.

For example, one reasoning scenario described an experiment where subjects solved a jigsaw puzzle in a warm room without a radio, while others solved it in a cold room with a loud radio. Participants had to identify the confounding variables and understand why a scientist could not determine if the radio caused a delay.

Finally, participants completed a survey measuring their general tendency to believe in conspiracy theories. To measure cognitive flexibility, the team used a specific test called the bias against disconfirmatory evidence task. This test assesses how well people update their beliefs when given new information.

Participants read a short text scenario that initially suggested one highly plausible interpretation. For instance, a sentence stating that a girl named Jenny cannot fall asleep might lead a reader to assume she is nervous about a school exam.

As participants read subsequent sentences, that first conclusion became highly unlikely. A new, initially hidden truth emerged, such as the detail that Jenny cannot wait for Christmas morning.

The researchers wanted to see if participants would adjust their answers based on the new evidence. Failing to update their beliefs indicated a bias against disconfirmatory evidence. This means they stubbornly stuck to their initial assumptions despite facts proving them wrong.

Using a statistical grouping method, the researchers sorted the general population sample into four distinct profiles based on their test scores. The results highlighted a distinct cognitive pathway to conspiratorial thinking.

One specific group of participants showed high systemizing tendencies alongside elevated autistic traits. These individuals endorsed conspiracy beliefs at high rates and performed poorly on the cognitive flexibility task. They proved highly resistant to abandoning their initial, flawed interpretations.

Yet, these same individuals scored quite well on the scientific puzzle test. Their ability to understand scientific concepts did not protect them from believing in conspiracies.

“What stood out is that people who systemise strongly want the world to make sense in a very consistent way,” says Georgiou. “Conspiracy theories often offer that sense of order. They tie loose ends together.”

“Even when someone has strong reasoning ability, their desire for strict explanations can overshadow their ability to question those beliefs,” he adds. The second study focused entirely on a clinical sample to explore this further. The researchers recruited 145 adults who had been formally diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder.

These participants completed the exact same set of online questionnaires and cognitive tasks as the first group. The goal was to see if systemizing tendencies influenced the relationship between autistic traits and conspiracy beliefs within an autistic population. The data confirmed the researchers’ suspicions.

Autistic traits alone did not directly cause an increase in conspiracy beliefs. Instead, systemizing tendencies acted as a bridge connecting the two. Participants who scored high in both autistic traits and systemizing tendencies showed the highest levels of conspiracy belief.

For those with low systemizing tendencies, the link between their autistic traits and conspiracy beliefs was not statistically significant. Additionally, cognitive rigidity played a massive role in the clinical sample. Participants who struggled to adjust their views during the reading task were much more likely to endorse conspiracy theories.

“In tasks that required participants to revise their views when presented with new information, those with high systemising tendencies were less likely to shift their perspective,” says Georgiou. “This may help explain why conspiracy beliefs can persist even when contradictory information is available.”

The researchers noted a few caveats regarding their methodology. In the second study, participants self-reported their autism diagnoses through an online research panel. While they scored above standard clinical thresholds on the questionnaires, they did not undergo in-person medical evaluations for the study.

Additionally, users of international online research panels tend to have higher levels of education than the general public. This demographic skew means the results might not perfectly reflect the broader population. The study also relied on individual testing, which ignores how social influence within groups might shape a person’s beliefs over time.

Future research should investigate how people with strong systemizing tendencies interact with conspiracy theories in group settings. Evaluating behavior in simulated chat forums could reveal how social dynamics influence these rigid belief structures.

These findings suggest a need to rethink how society combats misinformation. Currently, most interventions focus on fact-checking and debunking false claims with logical arguments.

If a person embraces a conspiracy theory because it fulfills a psychological need for order, simply presenting them with opposing facts might fail to change their mind. Interventions for people with high systemizing traits might need to address the underlying desire for structure.

“It’s about the cognitive style someone brings to information,” says Georgiou. “For people who naturally seek structure and predictability, conspiracy theories can be appealing because they feel ordered, logical and consistent for events that feel chaotic.”

Public health officials and science communicators may need to develop new strategies that recognize these different cognitive profiles. “Rather than relying only on fact-checking or logic-based interventions, strategies may need to reflect how people prefer to process information,” says Georgiou. “Conspiracy beliefs meet psychological needs, and if we ignore that, we overlook what actually makes these narratives persuasive.”

The study, “The hyper-systemizing hypothesis: how the tendency to systemize influences conspiracy beliefs and belief inflexibility in clinical and general populations,” was authored by Neophytos Georgiou, Paul Delfabbro, Ryan P. Balzan, Nathan Caruana & Robyn Young.