People have always been fascinated by the extent to which belief or will may influence<p>behavior. Proverbs, like “we tend to get what we expect,” and concepts, such as optimistic<p>thinking or self-fulfilling prophecy, reflect this intuition of an important link between one’s<p>dispositions and subsequent behavior. In other words, one’s predictions directly or<p>indirectly cause them to become true. In a similar manner, every culture, country or<p>religion has their own words for ‘expectation,’ ‘belief,’ ‘disappointment,’ ‘surprise,’ and<p>generally all have the same meaning: under uncertainty, what one expects or believes is the<p>most likely to happen. This relation between what caused a reaction in the past will<p>probably cause it again in the future might not be realistic. If the expected outcome is not<p>confirmed, it may result in a personal ‘disappointment’, and if the outcome fits no<p>expectations, it will be a ‘surprise’. Our brain is hardwired with this heuristic capacity of<p>learning the cause-effect relationship and to project its probability as the basis for much of<p>our behavior, as well as cognitions. This experience-based expectation is a form of<p>learning that helps the brain to bypass an exhaustive search in finding a satisfactory<p>solution. Expectations may thus be considered an innate theory of causality; that is, a set of<p>factors (causes) generating a given phenomenon (effects) influence the way we treat<p>incoming information but also the way we retrieve the stored information. These<p>expectancy templates may well represent one of the basic rules of how the brain processes<p>information, affecting the way we perceive the world, direct our attention and deal with<p>conflicting information. In fact, expectations have been shown to influence our judgments<p>and social interactions, along with our volition to individually decide and commit to a<p>particular course of action. However, people’s expectations may elicit the anticipation of<p>their own automatic reactions to various situations and behaviors cues, and can explain that<p>expecting to feel an increase in alertness after coffee consumption leads to experiencing<p>the consequent physiologic and behavioral states. We call this behavior-response<p>expectancy. This non-volitional form of expectation has been shown to influence<p>cognitions such as memory, pain, visual awareness, implicit learning and attention, through<p>the mediation of phenomena like placebo effects and hypnotic behaviors. Importantly,when talking about expectations, placebo and hypnosis, it is important to note that we are<p>also talking about suggestion and its modulating capability. In other words, suggestion has<p>the power to create response expectancies that activate automatic responses, which will, in<p>turn, influence cognition and behavior so as to shape them congruently with the expected<p>outcome. Accordingly, hypnotic inductions are a systematic manipulation of expectancy,<p>similar to placebo, and therefore they both work in a similar way. Considering such<p>assumptions, the major question we address in this PhD thesis is to know if these<p>expectancy-based mechanisms are capable of modulating more high-level information<p>processing such as cognitive conflict resolution, as is present in the well-known Stroop<p>task. In fact, in a recent series of studies, reduction or elimination of Stroop congruency<p>effects was obtained through suggestion and hypnotic induction. In this PhD thesis, it is<p>asked whether a suggestion reinforced by placebos, operating through response-expectancy<p>mechanisms, is able to induce a top-down cognitive modulation to overcome cognitive<p>conflict in the Stroop task, similar to those results found using suggestion and hypnosis<p>manipulation. / Doctorat en Sciences Psychologiques et de l'éducation / info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished