Suffix effect
The suffix effect is a cognitive bias that affects how information is remembered, particularly when it comes to lists and sequences. It refers to the phenomenon where the recall of the last items in a list is impaired when a distracting suffix is added immediately after the list. This effect highlights the intricacies of memory mechanisms, especially concerning auditory stimuli.
How it works
The suffix effect operates by adding a non-essential auditory element at the end of a series of items, which then interferes with the recency effect—the tendency for individuals to better recall the last items in a list. When a neutral auditory cue, like 'okay' or 'go', is added after the list, it disrupts the brain’s ability to cleanly process and store the final items. This suggests that memory, particularly for auditory information, can be disrupted by subsequent, redundant stimuli that compete for cognitive resources.
Examples
- If a waiter lists ten dishes and then adds 'hmm' at the end before customers can place their order, those listening might have trouble remembering the last few dishes.
- In a study scenario, participants are asked to remember a list of numbers. If the experimenter adds an unrelated word immediately after the list, participants might struggle to recall the last few numbers accurately.
Consequences
The suffix effect can lead to decreased accuracy in memory recall of important information following an auditory distraction. This can affect areas requiring precise recall of lists, such as instructions or orders, impacting everything from everyday communication to academic and professional settings.
Counteracting
To counteract the suffix effect, it can be beneficial to minimize unnecessary auditory distractions after presenting a list. Additionally, emphasizing the importance of the final items or employing visual aids can help maintain focus on the key elements. Practicing active listening and using mnemonic devices can also help in retaining information despite distractions.
Critiques
Critics of the suffix effect argue that its real-world applicability is limited, as most real-life situations do not involve perfectly silent environments or strictly auditory information. Additionally, individual differences such as language proficiency and working memory capacity can influence susceptibility to the effect, which may not be adequately considered in blanket assessments.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
The suffix effect: Attentional inhibition of recall of the final items
Crowder, R. G. (1973)
Cognitive Psychology, 5(4), 525-536
The use of auditory and phonetic memory by children
Cowan, N., & Morse, P. A. (1986)
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41(3), 379-391
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Suffix effect manifests in practice
Context
In a busy urban hospital, nurses perform verbal shift handoffs at the nurse station while also monitoring phones, pagers, and monitor alarms. The standard handoff practice relied heavily on spoken lists of patients and pending medication tasks, with limited written backup.
Situation
During evening shift change, the outgoing nurse read aloud a five-item list of time-sensitive medication administrations for her patients. Immediately after finishing the list she answered a ringing phone at the station — the brief phone exchange produced an audible suffix (a short unrelated utterance and tone) before the incoming nurse began documenting tasks.
The Bias in Action
Because the distracting phone exchange followed directly after the verbal list, the incoming nurse was substantially less likely to recall the last one or two medications on the list. The brief auditory suffix disrupted the short-lived echoic memory trace for the final items, reducing the usual recency advantage. The incoming nurse proceeded to document and prepare the first three items accurately but left out the final dose, believing she had captured the full list.
Outcome
One of the omitted medications (a scheduled analgesic) was not administered on time; the patient experienced increased pain and required intervention, and a medication administration record had to be amended. A review of handoff errors over the next month showed several similar omissions tied to verbal handoffs that were followed immediately by phone interactions.