The Psychology of "I'll get the Next One" (and Why It Never Evens Out)
"I'll get the next one."
It's one of the most common phrases in friendship. Someone picks up the tab, and you promise to cover it next time. It feels generous, casual, and fair—like you're building a system of mutual support where things naturally balance out over time.
Except they don't.
If you've ever felt like you're always the one paying, or if you've ever been accused of not reciprocating when you were sure you got the last round—you've experienced the fundamental flaw in the "I'll get the next one" system.
Here's why it never actually evens out, and what's really happening in our brains when we try to keep informal tabs.
The psychology behind "I'll get the next one"
We genuinely believe we're being fair
When you say "I'll get the next one," you mean it. You're not trying to take advantage. You fully intend to reciprocate. The problem isn't bad intentions—it's how human memory and perception work.
Memory is selective and self-serving
Psychological research shows that we remember our own generous actions more vividly than we remember receiving generosity from others. This isn't malicious—it's just how memory works.
When you pay for something, it's a concrete action you took. You remember pulling out your wallet, seeing the total, feeling the small sacrifice.
When someone else pays for you, it's passive. You didn't have to do anything, so it doesn't encode as strongly in your memory.
Result? Everyone in the friend group genuinely believes they pay more often than they actually do.
"Next time" is vague and unenforceable
What counts as "next time"? The next dinner? The next outing? The next time you see each other, even if it's coffee instead of dinner?
Without clear boundaries, "next time" can keep getting pushed back. "Oh, this is just coffee, I'll get the next real meal." Before you know it, months have passed and nobody's sure who owes what.
Social pressure prevents accountability
If someone doesn't get "the next one," what are you supposed to do? Keep track and call them out? That feels petty and ruins the casual, generous vibe you were going for in the first place.
So you stay quiet. And the imbalance continues.
Why the imbalance compounds over time
Small differences add up
Maybe you pay for a $30 dinner, and your friend gets the next $15 coffee. Technically they "got the next one," but it's not actually even. Over time, these small imbalances accumulate.
Life circumstances change
When you started the "I'll get the next one" system, maybe you and your friend were in similar financial situations. But now one of you got a raise, or one of you is dealing with unexpected expenses. The informal system doesn't adapt.
Frequency matters
If you see each other twice a week, "I'll get the next one" might actually work out reasonably well. If you see each other once a month, there's too much time between transactions for anyone to remember accurately.
Different spending styles create tension
One person suggests expensive restaurants and always says "I'll get the next one." The other person would prefer cheaper options but feels obligated to reciprocate at the same level. Now "taking turns" means both people are spending more than they're comfortable with.
The three types of people in every friend group
The Over-Giver: Pays more often but doesn’t keep track or bring it up. Absorbs the cost to avoid awkwardness, but resentment builds quietly.
The Under-Reciprocator: Believes they're reciprocating fairly, but memory is biased. Not trying to take advantage—just has an inaccurate mental ledger.
The Avoider: “Forgets” their wallet, goes to the bathroom when the check comes, or never offers to pay. Rare, but the informal system enables it.
Most people are a mix of the first two. Very few are intentionally the third—but the informal system enables all three types.
What actually works better than "I'll get the next one"
Split in real time: Everyone pays their share at the moment of purchase. No memory required, no reciprocity tracking, no imbalance.
Alternate by category, not by transaction: “I’ll cover dinners, you cover drinks.” Clearer boundaries, easier to track.
Set a rotation schedule: For regular expenses, establish a clear rotation so everyone knows when it’s their turn.
Be explicit about dollar amounts: If you’re taking turns, acknowledge when things aren’t equal: “I’ll get this $50 dinner if you get the next one, but let’s make sure the next one is similar value.”
Use technology that eliminates the need to remember: The best solution is a system where nobody has to front money or remember who paid last—everyone pays their share automatically, every time.
What if you didn't have to keep track at all?
Orbit fundamentally changes the dynamic:
Instead of one person paying and hoping the other “gets the next one,” everyone pays their share in real time. There’s no “next one” to remember, no mental ledger to maintain, no reciprocity to track.
You can still be generous and adjust the split if you want, but the default is fair and automatic—so generosity becomes a choice, not an obligation.
No more wondering if things are even. No more memory bias. No more quiet resentment.
The bottom line
"I'll get the next one" sounds casual and generous, but it's built on a foundation of flawed memory, vague expectations, and unenforceable social contracts.
The problem isn't that people are selfish—it's that our brains aren't designed to accurately track informal reciprocity over time. We all genuinely believe we're being fair, even when the math tells a different story.
The solution isn’t to become more rigid or transactional in your friendships. It’s to use systems that eliminate the need for mental scorekeeping in the first place.
Because the best friendships aren’t the ones where you’re constantly tracking who owes what—they’re the ones where fairness is automatic, and you can focus on actually enjoying each other’s company.
Ready to stop keeping score? Join the Orbit waitlist and experience group expenses that are automatically fair, every time—so you can focus on the friendship, not the finances.