Hot cognition is a motivated reasoning phenomenon in which a person's responses (often emotional) to stimuli are heightened. Hot cognition might be associated with cognitive arousal, in which a person is much more responsive to environmental factors regardless of the response's impact on learning. A learner who displays hot cognition is highly attentive and interactive with information. Sometimes the learner will respond based on emotion, without analyzing the response. Hot cognition makes it difficult for a person to "calm down" to analyze the process properly. Basically, hot cognition is the masterful entwinement of both a person's emotions, and their thoughts. Thus, decisions influenced by hot cognition tend to be less rational, and more emotionally motivated. [1]The opposite of hot cognition is cold cognition, which is excessively critical and over-analyzing.[2]
The distinction between "hot" and "cold" cognition as a theory relative to cognitive processes and learning motivation was introduced by Robert P. Abelson in 1963.[3][4]
Hot cognition is a rapid and automatic response that causes bias and can lead to low-quality decision making. It frequently arises, with varying degrees of strength, in politics, religion, and other sociopolitical contexts because of moral issues. Three experiments by Milton Lodge and Charles S. Taber demonstrated the instantaneous triggering of positive or negative emotion and the relative slowness of response to differing ways of thinking.[5]
An example of bias caused by hot cognition would be a juror disregarding evidence because of attraction to the defendant. Another example of hot cognition would be a person's noble decision to lay down their life to save others in a time of chaos, such as a gunman at a school.[6]Cool cognition is the absence of hot cognition; in this case, dispassionate consideration of the evidence. Another would be taking the side of someone with shared political beliefs, in a situation not involving politics. In some instances, the emotional response is weak enough to be overpowered by reasoning.[7] However, Lodge and Taber expect that "most citizens, but especially those . . . with strong political attitudes, will be biased information processors."[5]