Certain Minds Are Drawn Toward Conspiracy Theories. This Study May Have Figured Out Why.

Conspiracy theories may feel like answers to people whose brains crave patterns.

A person who spots hidden connections in everyday events, who needs explanations for why things happen, who finds genuine satisfaction in rules and systems, might seem like the last candidate to believe a shadowy cabal controls world events. New research says that assumption deserves a serious rethink.

Scientists at Flinders University and the University of Adelaide found that people with strong “systemizing” tendencies, a cognitive style defined by the drive to detect patterns and find the logic behind everyday phenomena, were more likely to endorse conspiracy beliefs in certain cognitive profiles. That relationship held across both the general public and people formally diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Published in the journal Cognitive Processing, the paper argues that conspiracy theories, with their neat, internally consistent explanations for otherwise chaotic events, may feel almost tailor-made for minds that crave order.

Here is where the research becomes counterintuitive. Strong systemizers often perform well on scientific reasoning tests. They are not falling for conspiracy narratives out of intellectual weakness. Rather, the drive to impose structure on the world may lead certain people to find conspiratorial explanations genuinely satisfying, regardless of whether those explanations actually hold up. Researchers call this the “hyper-systemizing hypothesis.”

Why Pattern-Seeking Minds Are Drawn to Conspiracy Theories

To test the idea, the research team ran two separate studies using different participant groups and a consistent set of psychological tools.

Study 1 recruited 412 adults online, drawn primarily from the United States, the United Kingdom, and continental Europe. Participants were given a battery of tests covering autistic traits, pattern-seeking tendencies, scientific reasoning ability, and conspiracy beliefs, along with a separate task measuring how willing they were to change their minds when new evidence arrived.

Researchers then used a statistical technique that groups people into distinct profiles based on shared psychological characteristics. Four profiles emerged. Two of them appeared consistent with clinical-range autistic traits based on questionnaire scores, and a telling pattern appeared between those two groups. One combined high pattern-seeking scores and elevated conspiracy beliefs while also performing reasonably well on scientific reasoning. The other had similarly elevated autistic traits, weaker scientific reasoning, and comparably high conspiracy endorsement, but far lower systemizing scores. Two different cognitive paths arrived at the same conspiratorial destination.

Study 2 brought in 145 adults with confirmed autism spectrum disorder diagnoses, ranging in age from 18 to 65. In that group, researchers found that pattern-seeking tendencies amplified the link between autistic traits and conspiracy beliefs in a statistically clear way. At low levels of systemizing, autistic traits alone had little bearing on whether someone endorsed conspiracy theories. At high levels, the connection became substantially stronger. Pattern-seeking tendency, more than the diagnosis itself, appeared to be driving the relationship.

When Scientific Reasoning Can’t Stop Conspiracy Beliefs

Running through both studies was a separate behavioral task, one that revealed something arguably more interesting than the survey results alone. Each scenario opened with an ambiguous situation and introduced clarifying details over three successive steps, gradually making certain early interpretations implausible. People who dug in and refused to revise those initial interpretations, even as the evidence shifted against them, also tended to score higher on conspiracy endorsement.

That kind of belief rigidity, combined with a strong drive to find patterns, may be what makes a conspiracy theory so sticky once it takes hold. It also helps explain the most unexpected finding in Study 1: the group with the highest systemizing scores showed both strong scientific reasoning ability and elevated conspiracy endorsement. Knowing how to evaluate evidence did not necessarily prevent conspiratorial beliefs in people with strong systemizing tendencies.

Why Debunking Conspiracy Theories May Not Work for Everyone

Most efforts to counter conspiracy beliefs rely on logic and evidence, trying to reason people out of what they believe. According to the study’s authors, for a meaningful portion of the population, that approach appears to be falling short. A well-reasoned counter-argument addresses the content of a belief but not the underlying drive to hold it. The authors suggest that interventions may need to move beyond logic-based approaches and consider underlying cognitive preferences and motivational factors.

Earlier research on autism and conspiracy beliefs generally asked whether autistic people, as a group, were more susceptible. This study argues that framing is too broad. Within the autistic population, degree of systemizing, rather than the diagnosis itself, appears to be the more meaningful variable. Autistic individuals with lower systemizing tendencies showed little elevated risk.

For years, the most widely accepted prescription for conspiracy beliefs has been straightforward: help people think more critically and they will be less susceptible. This study makes a strong case that something else is at work, at least for a significant share of the population. When a mind is built to search for patterns and resist disorder, a conspiracy theory is not simply an error in logic. It is an answer to a need, and recognizing that distinction may be the most important step toward actually addressing it.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a single published study and should not be interpreted as a definitive or clinical characterization of autism spectrum disorder or individuals with autistic traits. Findings reflect associations observed in research samples and may not apply universally. Readers should not use this research to draw conclusions about any individual’s beliefs or cognitive profile.

---