← The Casebook

Recall ladder · what the list keeps

Next-in-Line Effect

People have diminished memory for events, information, or performances that occur immediately before their own turn to perform in a sequence.

How the trace forms

The next-in-line effect is caused by an encoding deficit, not a retrieval failure. As a person's turn to perform approaches, attentional resources are diverted from encoding ongoing environmental stimuli toward self-focused preparation for the upcoming performance (Brenner, 1973). This attention diversion results in shallow encoding of pre-performance items, which are therefore never stored in long-term memory and cannot be retrieved later (Bond, 1985). The effect is consistent with Kahneman's capacity framework model of limited attentional resources.

Competing account — An alternative state-dependent retrieval account (Bond & Omar, 1990) proposed that anxiety during encoding but not retrieval prevents recall. However, Bond and Omar found that anxious participants remained anxious during retrieval and still showed the deficit, and that retrieval cues did not eliminate the effect, converging on encoding failure as the primary mechanism.

Trials, in order of recall strength

first seenmiddle · sinkslast seen
Trial 01Original next-in-line effect demonstrationnot reported

Readers had better recall for words they themselves read aloud (due to motor, visual, and auditory cues) but showed diminished recall for words read by other readers within approximately 9 seconds (about 3 words) before their own turn. Listener participants showed consistent recall throughout, confirming the deficit was specific to performance anticipation.

Brenner · 1973 · n = 22 participants (readers and listeners)

Trial 02Encoding versus retrieval deficitnot reported

Providing retrieval cues did not eliminate the next-in-line deficit, supporting an encoding-failure interpretation. When participants were instructed to deeply encode pre-performance items, the effect was eliminated, confirming that shallow encoding (due to attention diversion) is the mechanism.

Bond · 1985 · Undergraduate participants

Trial 03Performance anticipation and blanket amnesianot reported

Randomizing performance order extended the memory deficit across all non-performance words (a 'blanket' deficit), because performance anticipation was continuous. When participants had no warning they would perform, the next-in-line effect was eliminated. This confirmed that anticipation, not performance itself, causes the deficit.

Bond & Kirkpatrick · 1982 · Undergraduate participants

holds in recall

Retention — robust. The next-in-line effect has been replicated in free recall (Brenner, 1973; Bond & Kirkpatrick, 1982; Bond & Omar, 1990), cued recall (Bond, 1985), and recognition memory (Bond, Pitre, & van Leeuwen, 1991). A 2019 study in the Journal of Memory and Language further confirmed the role of performance anticipation in recognition memory deficits. The basic finding has been replicated across multiple labs with consistent results.

Recalled in the field

  • education · 1973

    Conference presentation memory deficit

    Researchers and professionals commonly report poor memory for talks that immediately preceded their own conference presentations—a real-world manifestation of the next-in-line effect that has implications for knowledge dissemination at academic and professional conferences.

  • education · 1973

    Classroom icebreaker name-forgetting

    Students in classroom introduction activities commonly fail to remember classmates' names and details shared immediately before their own turn, because attention is diverted toward preparing their own self-introduction rather than encoding peers' information.

To strengthen the trace

When you know you will be performing soon, consciously direct attention to what is being said in the moment. Bond (1985) showed that explicit instructions to deeply encode pre-performance information eliminated the deficit. Taking notes during others' presentations also forces attention allocation to encoding.

Bond (1985) found that instructing participants to pay attention to information presented before their performance eliminated the next-in-line effect. Deep encoding instructions and note-taking redirect attentional resources toward the to-be-remembered stimuli.

Catch it in the act

Notice when you cannot remember what the person before you said in a meeting, class, or round-robin introduction; when a presenter cannot recall the prior talk at a conference; or when you are so focused on preparing your own contribution that you tune out what is being said in the moment.

Adjacent in memory

  • Production effectmechanistically-linkedThe production effect refers to memory advantages for items read aloud versus silently. A 2019 study found that performance anticipation during mixed-list production tasks may explain part of the cost for silent items, linking the two phenomena.
  • Social facilitationsiblingBoth involve how the presence of others and anticipated performance affect cognition and behavior, though social facilitation focuses on performance quality rather than memory.
  • Directed attention deficitparentThe next-in-line effect is a specific instance of broader attentional limitations; performance anticipation diverts limited attentional resources away from encoding ongoing stimuli.

File your own case

Open the same case on your own draft.

Paste a memo, a research draft, or a strategy argument. It is scored against all 175 cards, and the strongest two or three risks come back with the evidence quoted and one practical next check.

Open a case on your draft →