In the intricate landscape of human cognition, the allure of conspiracy theories has long puzzled researchers and the public alike. Why do some individuals gravitate toward elaborate explanations that ascribe hidden motives and orchestrated plots behind societal events? New scientific insights led by Dr. Neophytos Georgiou from Flinders University now shed compelling light on this phenomenon, revealing that the cognitive style known as “systemising” plays a pivotal role in shaping conspiracy belief adoption and the persistence of these beliefs despite countervailing evidence.
Systemising refers to a cognitive drive to detect patterns, establish rules, and comprehend the world through structured, rule-based frameworks. This mental mode seeks order and causality, striving to translate chaotic or ambiguous information into predictable schemas. Dr. Georgiou’s team argues that the preference for systemising can predispose individuals to embrace conspiracy theories because these narratives offer a compelling and coherent structure for understanding seemingly inexplicable or disordered events.
Contrary to the conventional assumption that conspiracy beliefs stem from a deficit in critical thinking or reasoning capabilities, the study’s findings contest this simplistic view. The research revealed that high systemisers often possess strong scientific reasoning skills. Yet, their deep-seated desire for consistent and orderly explanations means they can be drawn to conspiracy theories precisely because these narratives satisfy their yearning for closure and pattern coherence, even when alternative, fact-based accounts are available.
The extensive survey involving over 550 participants allowed the researchers to delineate distinct cognitive profiles regarding how people process information. Those exhibiting an intense drive to systemise displayed a greater proclivity toward endorsing conspiracy theories. This effect persisted independently of reasoning competence, suggesting that the underlying motivational framework to find regularity and causation exerts profound influence over belief formation.
An intriguing and somewhat concerning aspect unveiled by the study concerns belief flexibility. Individuals with heightened systemising tendencies showed marked resistance to updating or revising their views when presented with new, contradictory evidence. This belief inflexibility elucidates why conspiracy theories often endure in the public discourse, even as factual corrections and debunking efforts proliferate.
This cognitive rigidity manifests in tasks designed to measure belief revision; highly systematic thinkers were less likely to accommodate novel information that conflicted with their pre-existing conspiracy-related beliefs. Such persistence underscores the psychological inertia institutionally challenging misinformation mitigation strategies aimed solely at fact-checking or logical persuasion.
From a broader perspective, the findings underscore an essential but often overlooked dimension of misinformation engagement: cognitive diversity. Understanding the varied thinking styles that individuals bring to information processing can illuminate why blanket interventions fail and why tailored approaches respecting these cognitive preferences are necessary.
Dr. Georgiou emphasizes that conspiracy beliefs fulfill deep psychological needs related to predictability and control. In unpredictable sociopolitical climates, the world may appear fragmented and confusing, driving some minds toward explanations that impose a tidy, all-encompassing order. These narratives reduce uncertainty and anxiety, offering a semblance of intellectual mastery over otherwise bewildering realities.
The implications of this research extend beyond academic curiosity as conspiracy beliefs affect critical real-world outcomes, including vaccine acceptance, trust in governmental and scientific institutions, and behavioral responses to emergencies. Misinformation around these issues can hinder public health efforts and social cohesion, highlighting the urgency of developing novel communication and education strategies aligned with cognitive processing styles.
In light of these insights, Dr. Georgiou advocates for reframing interventions targeting misinformation. Instead of exclusively focusing on debunking through fact dissemination and logical argumentation, it may be more effective to design approaches that engage with systemising preferences. For example, providing structured frameworks that channel the desire for order into evidence-based narratives might better resonate with this population segment.
This research opens exciting avenues for multidisciplinary collaboration, integrating cognitive psychology, social science, and public health to build robust strategies combating misinformation. It challenges stereotypical portrayals of conspiracy believers as irrational or uninformed, promoting a nuanced appreciation of the cognitive underpinnings that make such beliefs psychologically compelling.
By appreciating that conspiracy theories can serve as elaborate cognitive tools that impose order amidst chaos, society can develop empathy-driven and cognitively informed responses, fostering dialogue rather than alienation. Such understanding may ultimately contribute to more effective science communication and healthier public discourse in an era saturated with complex and often contradictory information.
The study, titled “The hyper-systemizing hypothesis: how the tendency to systemize influences conspiracy beliefs and belief inflexibility in clinical and general populations,” co-authored by Paul Delfabbro, Ryan P. Balzan, Nathan Caruana, and Robyn Young, was published in the journal Cognitive Processing. This work not only advances psychological theory but also lays foundational knowledge essential for tackling one of the 21st century’s most pervasive societal challenges.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: The hyper-systemizing hypothesis: how the tendency to systemize influences conspiracy beliefs and belief inflexibility in clinical and general populations
News Publication Date: 14-Jan-2026
Web References:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10339-025-01326-0
References:
Georgiou, N., Delfabbro, P., Balzan, R. P., Caruana, N., & Young, R. (2026). The hyper-systemizing hypothesis: how the tendency to systemize influences conspiracy beliefs and belief inflexibility in clinical and general populations. Cognitive Processing. DOI: 10.1007/s10339-025-01326-0
Image Credits: Flinders University
Keywords: systemising, conspiracy theories, belief inflexibility, cognitive style, misinformation, reasoning, critical thinking, psychology, public health, vaccine uptake, trust in institutions, information processing
