In the present study, we evaluate the suppression effect by asking participants to make inferences with everyday conditionals (“if A, then B”; “if Ana finds a friend, then she will go to the theatre”), choosing between three possible conclusions (“she went to the theatre”; “she did not go to the theatre”; “it cannot be concluded”). We test how these inferences can be influenced by three factors: a) when the content of the conditional induces us to think about disabling conditions that prevent us from accepting the consequent (A and ¬B) or alternative conditions that induce us to think about other antecedents that could also lead to the consequent (¬A and B), b) when explicit information is given about what really happened (e.g. Ana found a friend but they did not go to the theatre; or Ana did not find a friend but she went to the theatre) and c) when participants have to look for concrete disabling (e.g. Ana's friend had to work) and alternative cases (e.g. Ana's sister wanted to go to the theatre) before making the inferences. Previous studies have shown what were called “suppression effects”: disabling conditions reduced valid inferences while considering alternatives led to a reduction in fallacies. These two “suppression effects” were shown in Experiment 1: a) in an Implicit condition that included just the content factor of the conditional and b) with a greater magnitude in a second Explicit condition that included the three factors (content, explicit information and search for counterexamples). Experiment 2 compared the same Explicit condition with another in which participants, instead of looking for counterexamples, completed a control task of looking for synonyms. In addition, half the participants looked for a few items (2 cases) and the other half for many items (5 cases). Results again showed the suppressing effect in all the conditions, but the magnitude was greater in the counterexample condition. No relevant differences were obtained according to the number of cases generated; the most relevant result was that the factors provided an additive effect on the suppression.

在本研究中，我们通过要求参与者对日常条件（“如果是A，然后是B”；“如果安娜找到一个朋友，那么她将去剧院”）进行推论，来评估抑制效果，并在三个可能的结论之间进行选择。 （“她去了剧院”；“她没有去剧院”；“这不能得出结论”）。我们测试这些推论如何受到三个因素的影响：a）当条件的内容促使我们考虑使我们无法接受随之而来的（A和¬B）或导致我们考虑其他因素的替代条件的残疾条件时b）当给出了关于真实发生的事情的明确信息时（例如，安娜找到了一个朋友，但他们没有去剧院）；或Ana找不到朋友，但她去了剧院）； c）参与者在制作剧本之前必须寻求具体的残疾（例如Ana的朋友必须工作）和其他情况（例如Ana的姐姐想去剧院）。推论。先前的研究表明了所谓的“抑制效应”：禁用条件会减少有效推论，同时考虑其他选择会导致谬误的减少。在实验1中显示了这两个“抑制效果”：a）在隐式条件下仅包含条件的内容因子，b）在第二显式条件下包含三个因子（内容，显式信息和条件）的幅度更大。搜索反例）。实验2将相同的“显式”条件与其他参与者进行了比较，而不是寻找反例，而是完成了寻找同义词的控制任务。此外，一半的参与者寻找一些物品（2例），另一半寻找许多物品（5例）。结果再次显示了在所有条件下的抑制效果，但是在反例条件下幅度更大。根据产生的病例数未发现相关差异；最相关的结果是，这些因素对抑制作用具有加和作用。根据产生的病例数未发现相关差异；最相关的结果是，这些因素对抑制作用具有加和作用。根据产生的病例数未发现相关差异；最相关的结果是，这些因素对抑制作用具有加和作用。