The illusory truth effect refers to the phenomenon where repeated statements are more likely to be perceived as true compared to new statements. This effect encompasses not only verbatim repetition but also statements that are implied or inferred from the original. The illusory truth effect can be explained by the referential theory of truth, which posits that when processing a repeated statement, the previously formed coherent network will prompt individuals to judge it as true. Currently, the referential theory of truth still lacks evidence involving contexts with multiple statements. Our study investigates, across three experiments, whether statements inferred from multiple statements are perceived to be more true than new statements. Experiment 1a and 1b tested whether statements derived from transitive inference are judged more truthful. Experiment 2 used materials with non-transitive relations to see if erroneous inferred statements are also seen as more truthful. The results showed that, compared to new statements, statements inferred from the original statements with transitive relations are considered more truthful. More importantly, even when no transitive relations existed between the original statements, individuals still tend to perceive the erroneous inferred statements as more truthful compared to new statements. Our study provides new evidence for the referential theory of truth and highlights the role of inferential relations in establishing semantic network coherence. These findings further highlight the significant impact of the illusory truth effect in real-life situations.
