Research indicates that belief in conspiracy theories can have negative consequences for both individuals and societies, such as increased prejudice and group antagonism, negative health related behaviors, decreased trust in authorities and democratic processes to name a few. In light of the negative consequences that belief in conspiracy theories can have it is imperative to gain a better understanding of how common (various degrees of) belief in conspiracy theories is, and what cognitive psychological factors are related to differences between people more versus less susceptible to belief in conspiracy theories. However, previous research has mainly studied this phenomenon via a variable-centered approach (such as correlation and regression analyses that produces a single value for all participants). This approach means that important information regarding individual response patterns is missing. In this paper we use a person-centered approach, Latent Profile Analysis, in order to identify latent profiles (i.e., groups of participants) that shares a meaningful and interpretable pattern of belief in conspiracy theories. We also investigate differences between the identified profiles in relation to analytical and intuitive thinking, and science denial variables. 451 participants (Mean age=30.80, SD=16.59, 61% female) were recruited from two Swedish populations (a general adult population from 18 years and older, and a population consisting of high school students). The adult sample (N=237, Mean age=43.70, SD=13.20, 63% female) was based on data from an online survey. We measured belief in conspiracy theories using the Generic Conspiracy Belief scale (GCBS), developed by Brotherton, French and Pickering in 2013, which we translated into Swedish. Therefore, we will also present psychometric data concerning this translated version of the GCBS. We measured self-reported Analytical and Intuitive Thinking using the Rational_Experiential Inventory (REI-40), the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to measure performance-based analytical thinking, and Acceptance of Climate and Vaccination science using scales developed by Lewandowsky et al. (2013).