Why Only Half of People Define Truth by Facts, New Study Reveals

Maria and Peter, two students, meet for dinner and discuss attending a party later that evening. Peter asks Maria if Tom will be at the party. Maria confidently replies that Tom will be there, citing his prior statement that he would attend. When they arrive, however, Tom is nowhere to be found—he had changed his plans. This scenario was presented to research participants in a new study by a team of European researchers.

The participants were then asked a critical question: Was Maria’s answer true or false? From a factual standpoint, Maria’s statement was objectively false. Yet, the study published in Cognition revealed a surprising result: only just over 50 percent of participants agreed with this assessment.

The remaining participants did not prioritize factual accuracy. Instead, they evaluated truth based on how well Maria’s statement aligned with her personal beliefs or whether her belief was sincere and honest. This suggests that many people define truth through either coherence (how well a statement fits within a person’s existing beliefs) or authenticity (whether the speaker genuinely believed what they said).

How Do People Conceptualize Truth?

To explore how ordinary people understand truth, the researchers first created conceptual maps of 200 participants. They asked how similar people think truth is to other related concepts:

• Correspondence: Truth’s relationship to “reality” and “fact.”
• Coherence: Truth’s relationship to “justification” and “reason.”
• Authenticity: Truth’s relationship to “honesty” and “transparency.”

While many participants endorsed elements of all three conceptions, a “winner-takes-all” summary showed that 55 percent aligned most strongly with the correspondence theory. In other words, just a bare majority believes truth is defined by factual reality.

Do People’s Views on Truth Change Over Time?

Three months later, the researchers recontacted 128 of the original participants to reassess their views. They presented the same Maria and Peter scenario and asked a binary question: Was Maria’s statement true or false?

“A ‘true’ response reflects an authenticity- or coherence-based understanding, as it emphasizes Maria’s sincerity or justification at the time of speaking, while a ‘false’ response reflects a correspondence view, judging truth based on factual alignment with reality.”

The results remained consistent with the initial findings. Of the 128 participants:

• 68 (53.13%) responded that Maria’s answer was false, aligning with the correspondence theory.
• 60 (46.89%) responded that Maria’s answer was true, prioritizing authenticity or coherence.

Again, a bare majority endorsed factual reality as the standard for determining truth.

Why Does This Divide Matter?

In an article summarizing their findings for Psyche, the researchers explain how different conceptions of truth can lead to conflict. When people prioritize sincerity or coherence over factual accuracy, misunderstandings and disagreements often arise—especially in discussions about news, politics, or personal beliefs. The study highlights the importance of recognizing these varied perspectives when evaluating statements or claims.