16

When individuals are led to explain rather “inexplicable” events, they are most likely to resort to “wild beliefs” (i.e., beliefs that do not stem from institutionally programmed discourse), insofar as they have first been exposed to a situation where they experienced either cognitive control or no cognitive control, and exposed to the relation between those events under a “fantasy rhetoric” ( vs “factual”, Deconchy, DelPizzo, & Oung, 2004). These previous works were based on classic experimental designs and employed Likert type of scales for assessing the pertinence of pre-constructed explanations including “wild explanations”. Conceivably, this may be the equivalent of “forced discourse”. In the present work, the same variables were manipulated, and participants ( N=135) were asked to freely propose some explanations for those inexplicable events. A correspondence factor analysis was performed on this “spontaneous discourse”. This analysis revealed the same “wild explanations” tied to the same situation (cognitive control and fantasy rhetoric). It also shed light on how participants progressively construct this association. Ultimately, this leads to raise some epistemological questions.