argumentcognitive

Argumentcognitive is a neologistic term used to describe the study of how cognitive processes influence the creation, evaluation, and spread of arguments. It sits at the intersection of argumentation theory and cognitive psychology, examining how attention, memory, reasoning, biases, and mental models shape argumentative behavior.

Origins and scope: The term is not part of a formally established field but appears in scattered scholarly discussions as an umbrella for a cross-disciplinary perspective on cognition in argumentation. It encompasses three core areas: argument generation (how premises and conclusions are constructed under cognitive constraints), argument evaluation (how people assess evidence, infer conclusions, and weigh credibility), and argument diffusion (how arguments are rehearsed, transmitted, and resisted in groups and media).

Key constructs and methods: Research in argumentcognitive draws on cognitive load, dual-process theory, heuristics and biases, working memory, belief and confirmation biases, framing effects, and source monitoring. Methods include experimental psychology studies, cognitive modeling, discourse and corpus analysis, and, in some cases, neurocognitive approaches.

Applications: Insights from argumentcognitive can inform education by improving critical thinking and reasoning training, the design of persuasive or informative materials, and the development of artificial intelligence for argument mining and automated reasoning. It also has relevance for understanding misinformation, political deliberation, and negotiation strategies.

Criticism and limitations: The lack of formal consensus on definitions and boundaries can lead to terminological confusion with related fields such as cognitive psychology, metacognition, and traditional argumentation theory.

See also: argumentation theory; cognitive psychology; dual-process theory; heuristics and biases; argument mining; computational linguistics.