They cop a bad rap, but the validity of conspiracy theories may have more to do with the eye of the beholder than a lack of critical thinking.
So say Australian researchers after road testing the notion with more than 500 people in a bid to understand how some developed a heightened interest in secret organisations and alternative explanations.
Led by Flinders University, the study found those who prefer structured, rule‑based explanations may find conspiracy theories appealing because they offer clear, ordered reasons for events that feel chaotic.
Understanding how someone processes information can be a strong predictor of whether they are drawn to the alternative, according to lead researcher Neophytos Georgiou.
In practical terms, it might also decode potentially important decisions from rejecting vaccinations to mistrusting institutions or taking specific action during an emergency.
It could even help decipher the allure of high-profile theories such as Chinese involvement in the disappearance of former Australian prime minister Harold Holt, or the mafia or CIA ordering the assassination of JFK.
Going off the reservation, though, shouldn't merely suggest poor reasoning, Dr Georgiou said.
Instead, he points to a thinking style known as ‘systemising’ - a strong drive to identify patterns and make sense of events through consistent rules - in shaping how people interpret complex information.
“People often assume conspiracy beliefs form because someone isn’t thinking critically,” he said.
“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.”
The study found individuals who strongly favoured patterns and structure were more likely to believe conspiracy theories, even when they demonstrated good scientific reasoning skills.
“What stood out is that people who systemise strongly want the world to make sense in a very consistent way,” Dr Georgiou said.
“Conspiracy theories often offer that sense of order. They tie loose ends together."
In other words, the desire for strict explanations, even for someone with strong reasoning ability, can overshadow their capacity to ask questions.
The study also found people with good systemising preferences are less flexible when updating their beliefs in response to new evidence.
“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," Dr Georgiou said.
"This may help explain why conspiracy beliefs can persist even when contradictory information is available.
“It’s about the cognitive style someone brings to information."
It's hoped the conclusions will guide new approaches to dealing with misinformation.
“Rather than relying only on fact‑checking or logic‑based interventions, strategies may need to reflect how people prefer to process information,” Dr Georgiou said.
“Conspiracy beliefs meet psychological needs, and if we ignore that, we overlook what actually makes these narratives persuasive.”
