Negotiation Psychology: The Anchoring Effect and How to Use It Ethically

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you will be able to:

• Explain the psychological mechanism behind anchoring bias and why the human brain is vulnerable to it
• Identify the difference between "anchoring as insufficient adjustment" and "anchoring as selective accessibility," the two competing scientific explanations
• Apply first-offer strategy in real negotiations (salary, freelance rates, procurement, real estate)
• Recognize when making the first offer helps you and when it can backfire
• Defend against anchors set by counterparties
• Distinguish ethical anchoring from manipulative anchoring
• Read and adapt a full scripted salary negotiation transcript that demonstrates anchoring in action

Prerequisites

Who this is for: Job seekers preparing for salary talks, freelancers setting rates, expats negotiating rent or contracts in a new country, junior professionals who feel intimidated in negotiations, and anyone curious about applied behavioral psychology.

Required knowledge: None. This chapter starts from zero psychological background. Basic familiarity with the idea that negotiations involve two parties proposing numbers is enough.

Estimated reading time: 32-38 minutes.

Difficulty: Beginner to Intermediate. The core concept is simple; the nuance is in application.

Why This Matters

Anchoring is one of the most replicated findings in behavioral science, and it is not an academic curiosity — it has direct, measurable financial consequences. Research summarized by Harvard's Program on Negotiation (PON) states plainly that "the party that makes the first offer in a negotiation generally gets the best deal, multiple studies on negotiation and price anchoring suggest". The first number spoken in a negotiation "serves to draw subsequent offers in its direction".[1]

This is not a soft skill nice-to-have. It shows up in:

• Salary negotiations — the number a recruiter or candidate states first pulls the eventual offer toward it. PON illustrates this with a simple example: open at $60,000 and the final settlement lands near $62,500; open at $55,000 instead and it lands near $57,250 — a $5,000+ swing from the opening number alone.[2]
• Procurement and vendor contracts — companies that train buyers to always make the first move in sourcing negotiations use this deliberately.
• Real estate — a landmark study on real estate agents found that even professional appraisers, who should rely purely on objective criteria, were measurably influenced by a property's asking price when producing their own valuation, despite claiming price had no effect on their judgment.[3]
• M&A and deal-making — in a controlled negotiation simulation involving the sale of a chemical plant, researchers found that more ambitious first offers produced systematically better outcomes for whoever made them, and that precise, non-round numbers (like €5,818,600 instead of €5.8 million) produced even stronger anchoring effects because they signal expertise.[1]

This is why the concept matters to product managers negotiating scope, recruiters setting offer ranges, founders negotiating with investors, and expats negotiating a lease in an unfamiliar market where they lack local price intuition — the exact condition under which anchoring is strongest, because people anchor more when they are uncertain.[4]

The concept was first documented formally by psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman in their 1974 paper "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases," published in Science. Kahneman later won the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for this body of work — a rare case of a psychologist winning an economics prize, awarded for merging cognitive psychology into economic theory (Tversky had died in 1996 and was ineligible, as the prize is not awarded posthumously). Kahneman's 2011 book Thinking, Fast and Slow later brought these ideas to a mass audience.[5]

First Principles: What Anchoring Actually Is

Strip away the negotiation context for a moment. Anchoring is a general judgment bias: when people estimate an unknown value, they don't calculate it from scratch. They start from whatever number is already in front of them — the "anchor" — and adjust away from it. The adjustment is almost always insufficient, meaning the final estimate stays closer to the anchor than it rationally should.[4]

Tversky and Kahneman demonstrated this with a famous experiment: they asked participants to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations, but first had a wheel of fortune (rigged to land on either 10 or 65) spin in front of them. Participants who saw the wheel land on 10 gave much lower estimates than participants who saw it land on 65 — even though everyone in the room knew the wheel's outcome was random and completely irrelevant to the actual answer. This is the crucial part: the anchor doesn't need to be relevant, credible, or even connected to the decision to distort judgment.[5][4]

Why does this happen? There are two competing explanations, and understanding both makes you better at using and resisting anchors.

Mechanism 1: Anchoring as insufficient adjustment (Tversky's original view)

In this model, a person starts mentally at the anchor value and adjusts step by step toward what they believe is the correct answer — but they stop adjusting too early, usually because further adjustment feels effortful or because they reach a value that "feels plausible enough". If the anchor is high, they stop adjusting downward while still too high. If the anchor is low, they stop adjusting upward while still too low.[5]

Mechanism 2: Anchoring as selective accessibility (Kahneman's later, refined view)

A newer and more precise explanation is that the anchor doesn't just serve as a numeric starting point — it changes what information becomes mentally accessible. Once you hear a high anchor, your brain selectively searches memory for reasons that number could be correct, making anchor-consistent information easier to recall than anchor-inconsistent information. If you hear "$150,000" as a starting salary, your brain starts generating justifications for why that could be reasonable (this role is senior, this company is well-funded) rather than neutrally weighing all evidence.[5]

Later research by Chapman and Johnson, and separately by Fritz Strack and Thomas Mussweiler in the negotiation context, found that anchors work even when people are explicitly told the anchor is random or irrelevant, and even when they are financially incentivized to be accurate — motivation alone does not eliminate the bias. This is the detail that makes anchoring dangerous: knowing about the bias intellectually does not automatically protect you from it, though (as we'll see later) certain countermeasures do help.[6][4]

Mental model: Think of an anchor as gravity, not as a wall. It doesn't force the outcome to a fixed point, but it bends the trajectory of every subsequent number toward itself. The stronger and more precise the anchor, the stronger the gravitational pull.

Core Concepts

Concept 1: The First-Offer Advantage

Explanation: In a negotiation, whichever party states a number first sets an anchor that constrains the range of the rest of the conversation. A 2001 study published and summarized on PubMed tested this directly across three experiments and found that "whichever party, the buyer or seller, made the 1st offer obtained a better outcome," and that "1st offers were a strong predictor of final settlement prices".[7]

Intuition: Once a number is on the table, the conversation shifts from "what is this actually worth?" to "how far should we move from that number?" This reframes the entire negotiation around the anchor's neighborhood.

Real-world example: PON's salary example again: an opening offer of $60,000 versus $55,000 shifted the final settlement by roughly $5,000, even though the "true" market value of the role never changed. The only variable that changed was who spoke a number first, and what that number was.[2]

Visual explanation:

Common misconception: People often believe "whoever speaks first shows weakness" or "you should never reveal your number first." This folk wisdom is backwards in most distributive (single-issue, fixed-pie) negotiations like haggling over a salary or a used car price. The data consistently favors the first mover in these contexts. The exception, covered in the Deep Dive section, is when you have little information about the value range or when you are negotiating from a position of low power.[7][1]

Concept 2: Precision Strengthens Anchors

Explanation: Round numbers ($50,000, $500,000) are perceived as approximations, so the receiving party assumes there's a lot of flexibility around them. Precise numbers ($52,750, $497,300) are perceived as calculated and evidence-based, which makes the receiver less willing to push back hard.[1]

Intuition: A precise number implies the other side did real analysis to arrive at it — it signals competence and reduces the perceived room for negotiation.

Real-world example: A controlled simulation of a chemical-plant sale found that participants making highly precise first offers (down to the cent) received smaller counter-concessions from the other side and ultimately settled closer to their original number than participants who opened with round figures, even though the precise-offer group actually made less aggressive initial asks. Precision compensated for — and outperformed — raw aggressiveness.[1]

Visual explanation:

Source: PON summary of research on offer precision.[1]

Common misconception: People think a more "aggressive" (extreme) number always wins. In reality, the precision of the number matters independently of and sometimes more than its extremity — an oddly specific number outperforms a rounder, even more extreme one.[1]

Concept 3: Anchoring Depends on Power (BATNA)

Explanation: Your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement — the outcome you'd get if this negotiation fell through entirely) determines how confidently you can anchor and how vulnerable you are to being anchored by someone else. A 2023 study in Negotiation Journal by Maaravi, Heller, and Levy found that negotiators' relative power directly shapes the ambition of their first offers, and that "making the first offer produced a bargaining advantage" specifically for high-power negotiators.[2]

Intuition: If you have a strong alternative (another job offer, another apartment available), an aggressive anchor feels natural and credible because you can walk away. If you don't, an aggressive anchor feels risky, so you unconsciously soften it — and that softness becomes its own kind of self-anchor.

Real-world example: The same study found something counterintuitive: negotiators with weak power (a weak BATNA) who moved first tended to lowball themselves — they anchored their own offers too conservatively because they were mentally anchored by their own lack of leverage. As a result, they ended up worse off than if they had simply waited for a counterpart to make the first move — but only when facing a high-power counterpart, since that counterpart's opening anchor would have been aggressive regardless.[2]

Visual explanation:

Common misconception: "Powerful people should never make the first offer because it reveals eagerness." The research shows the opposite for high-power parties — the study explicitly found first-offer moves benefited high-power negotiators, not just low-power ones. Power changes the calculus, not the underlying rule that first offers predict outcomes.[2]

Deep Dive: Internal Mechanisms, Tradeoffs, and Design of a Negotiation Strategy

Why insufficient adjustment happens even under incentives

A worry you might reasonably have is: "Surely if I try hard enough, or if there's money at stake, I can adjust fully away from a bad anchor?" The research says no, not reliably. Multiple replications, cited in reviews of anchoring literature, show the bias persists even when subjects are told the anchor is random, and even under financial incentive to be accurate. This tells us anchoring is not primarily a motivation problem — it's a structural feature of how judgment under uncertainty works. This is important because it means "just be more careful" is not a real defense; you need a structural countermeasure (covered below), not just willpower.[6][4]

Why round numbers concede more information than precise ones

There's an underlying game-theoretic reason precise numbers work better as anchors, beyond just "looking smart." A round number ($50,000) is trivially easy to generate without any real calculation — it costs the speaker nothing to produce. A number like $52,340 implies a cost was paid to compute it (market research, cost analysis, competing offers), and the receiver updates their belief about the speaker's information advantage accordingly. This is related to costly signaling theory in economics: precision is a costly signal of legitimate information, and costly signals are harder to fake, so they are trusted more.[1]

The two-sided nature of the first-offer advantage

It's worth being honest about the limits here. The first-offer advantage is best established in distributive negotiations — single-issue, fixed-pie situations like haggling over one price. In integrative, multi-issue negotiations (a job offer with salary, remote-work days, signing bonus, and title all in play simultaneously), the picture is more nuanced. PON's later research on multi-issue negotiations specifically examines how to frame opening offers across several dimensions at once to maximize anchoring advantage without triggering pushback on every issue. The mechanism (first numbers anchor) still applies, but strategic sequencing of which issue to anchor first, and how to bundle offers, becomes its own skill.[8]

Anchoring and perspective-taking as a countermeasure

One of the most useful findings for defending against anchors comes from the same PubMed study cited earlier. The first-offer advantage was eliminated when the receiving party deliberately focused on information inconsistent with the anchor's implications — specifically, thinking about the other side's alternatives (their BATNA), thinking about their own reservation price, or thinking about their own target number, before responding. This worked in both face-to-face and email negotiations. In other words: the antidote to being anchored is not "ignore the number" (which doesn't work), but "actively generate a competing anchor of your own before reacting" — a structured mental exercise, not just awareness.[7]

Historical context

Anchoring sits inside a larger research program. Kahneman and Tversky's 1974 Science paper introduced anchoring alongside two other heuristics — representativeness and availability — as part of a broader argument that humans use fast mental shortcuts (heuristics) instead of full statistical reasoning when facing uncertainty. This became the founding text of behavioral economics, a field that challenged the traditional economic assumption of the fully rational actor. Negotiation researchers like Max Bazerman, Adam Galinsky, and Thomas Mussweiler later took this general cognitive finding and applied it specifically to bargaining contexts throughout the 1990s and 2000s, producing the negotiation-specific findings cited throughout this chapter.[9][3][5]

Practical Examples

Beginner example: Anchoring at the flea market

You're buying a used bicycle. The seller has no price tag. If you ask "how much do you want for it?" you let the seller anchor first, and their answer becomes the reference point for the entire haggling session — even if it's inflated. If instead you say "I can offer 80 euros for this," you set the anchor, and the seller's counter will typically be evaluated relative to your 80, not some independent "fair value" they had in mind. This is the simplest, purest form of the effect: no complexity, one issue, one number.

Intermediate example: Freelance rate negotiation

A client emails you: "What's your rate for this project?" Two options:

1. You ask "what's your budget?" — This lets the client anchor. If their real budget was $8,000 but they lowball at $4,000 expecting negotiation, you now have to fight your way up from their anchor.
2. You state: "For a project of this scope, my rate is $6,500." — You've anchored, and if the client's real ceiling was $8,000, you've captured value they were willing to spend but would never have volunteered.

Notice the asymmetry: anchoring first doesn't just avoid a bad anchor, it can actively pull the final number above what the passive party expected to pay, precisely because the buyer never got to reveal a lower number first.

Advanced example: Multi-issue job offer negotiation

This is where anchoring gets genuinely tactical. Say a company opens with: "We're thinking $95,000 base, standard benefits, no signing bonus." A naive response counters only on base salary. A more sophisticated response recognizes that the company has just anchored on three dimensions simultaneously — base, benefits, and bonus — and each anchor will independently pull your final package down unless you counter-anchor on all three.

Below is a full scripted transaction illustrating how a candidate can use precision anchoring and multi-issue counter-anchoring together.

Recruiter: "We'd like to offer you $95,000 base, with our standard benefits package, and unfortunately we don't do signing bonuses at this level."

Candidate: "I appreciate the offer. Based on my research into comparable roles with similar scope at companies like [X] and [Y] in this market, and factoring in the relocation costs I'll be covering, I was targeting $112,500 base, along with a $6,000 signing bonus to offset relocation. I'm confident we can find a number that works for both sides."

Recruiter: "That's higher than we typically go. We could potentially move to $102,000 base, but the signing bonus isn't something we usually do."

Candidate: "I understand budget constraints exist. Would $107,000 base work if we kept a smaller signing bonus of $3,000 to help with the immediate relocation costs? That would let me accept comfortably without needing to negotiate further on other fronts."

Recruiter: "Let me check with finance — I think we can do $105,000 base with a $2,500 one-time relocation bonus."

Candidate: "That works for me. Thank you for working through this with me."

Why this worked: The candidate's counter-anchor ($112,500 + $6,000) was precise, not round, which signaled research-backed legitimacy rather than an arbitrary high ask. It also anchored on two dimensions at once (base and bonus) rather than letting the recruiter's "no bonus" anchor stand unchallenged. The final settlement ($105,000 + $2,500) landed much closer to the candidate's anchor than the recruiter's original $95,000 — consistent with the finding that final settlements gravitate toward whichever number was more ambitious and more precisely stated.[7][1]

Diagrams: The Anchoring Decision Process

Tables: Comparing Anchoring Strategies

Common Mistakes

Mistake 1: Asking "what's your budget?" first. This voluntarily hands the anchor advantage to the other party. It happens because it feels polite or non-confrontational, but it structurally weakens your position before the negotiation even starts.

Mistake 2: Using round numbers to seem "reasonable." People round numbers instinctively because exact figures feel oddly specific or awkward to say aloud. But research shows precise numbers are read as more credible and produce smaller counter-concessions, not larger friction. The discomfort of saying "$107,250" instead of "$105,000" is worth pushing through.[1]

Mistake 3: Reacting to an anchor instead of resetting it. When someone opens with an extreme number, many people immediately start negotiating within that frame ("okay, can we meet in the middle of your number and something lower?"). This still lets the extreme anchor define the range. The fix demonstrated in the PubMed study is to deliberately think about your own alternatives and target before responding, which was shown to eliminate the anchoring advantage entirely.[7]

Mistake 4: Assuming awareness of the bias protects you from it. Multiple studies show anchoring persists even when subjects are explicitly told the anchor is random and irrelevant. Knowing about anchoring intellectually is not the same as being immune to it in the moment — you need active counter-anchoring, not just self-awareness.[4][5]

Mistake 5: Ignoring your BATNA before anchoring aggressively. An aggressive anchor without a credible alternative to fall back on can leave you exposed if the other party calls your bluff. The power research shows the first-offer advantage is strongest for negotiators who genuinely have leverage to back it up.[2]

Real Industry Examples

Real estate agents and appraisers: A widely cited study found that even trained, professional real estate appraisers — people whose entire job is objective property valuation — produced measurably different valuations depending on the listed asking price of a property, despite insisting the price had no bearing on their assessment. This demonstrates that anchoring isn't a layperson weakness; it affects domain experts making judgments within their specialty.[3]

Corporate procurement teams: Organizations that run structured vendor negotiations frequently train buyers on making the first move in sourcing conversations specifically because of the demonstrated first-offer advantage in distributive negotiations — this is a standard element of professional procurement and sourcing training, grounded in the same anchoring research.[7][1]

Multi-issue deal structuring: PON's ongoing negotiation research specifically studies how negotiators should sequence and frame first offers across multiple issues simultaneously (salary, equity, start date, benefits) to maximize the anchoring advantage without triggering across-the-board resistance — an active area of applied research as of late 2025.[8]

Important accuracy note: Specific internal negotiation playbooks used by named companies like Google, Amazon, or Stripe are not publicly documented in the sources available for this chapter, and this article will not invent claims about their specific internal practices. The industry patterns described above come from the general procurement, real estate, and negotiation research literature rather than named-company case studies.

Best Practices

• Research before you anchor. A precise anchor only works if it's defensible; an ambitious number backed by real market data (salary surveys, comparable sale prices, competitor rate cards) is far more durable under pushback than a number pulled from thin air.
• Prefer precise numbers over round numbers when you control the first offer. The research consistently shows precision produces smaller counter-concessions and stronger anchoring, independent of how extreme the number is.[1]
• Never let a silence be filled by the other party's number if you can help it. In distributive negotiations specifically, moving first is measurably advantageous in the majority of studied conditions.[7]
• Before responding to any first offer, deliberately think through your own target, your reservation price, and the other side's likely alternatives. This single habit was shown to neutralize the first-offer advantage against you.[7]
• In multi-issue negotiations, anchor on more than one dimension. If you only counter on salary while ignoring the recruiter's anchor on bonus and benefits, those unaddressed anchors quietly hold their ground.
• Calibrate ambition to your actual leverage. An aggressive anchor without a credible BATNA can be exposed and can damage trust; match the size of your ask to what you can credibly walk away from.[2]

Ethics of Anchoring: Where the Line Is

Anchoring itself is not manipulation — it's a structural feature of how any negotiation begins, since someone always speaks a number first. The ethical line is not "should I state a number first" but what kind of number, and how you frame it.

• Ethical anchoring: Opening with an ambitious but defensible number, backed by real market research, that you would honor if accepted. Precision here reflects genuine preparation.
• Unethical anchoring: Opening with a number you know to be wildly disconnected from any realistic value, purely to exploit the insufficient-adjustment bias, especially when you know the counterpart has no independent way to verify a fair range (e.g., exploiting an expat who lacks local price knowledge, or a first-time job seeker who doesn't know market salary bands).
• Gray area: Precise-sounding numbers used purely as a rhetorical trick with no underlying calculation behind them. This exploits the "precision signals expertise" effect without the substance that's supposed to justify it. Doing this occasionally may work short-term but erodes trust and reputation over repeated interactions or in small professional communities.[1]

A useful personal rule: you should be comfortable explaining, out loud, exactly how you arrived at your opening number, to the person you gave it to. If your justification would embarrass you if said honestly, the anchor has crossed from strategic framing into manipulation.

Interview Questions

Beginner: Q: What is anchoring bias? A: The tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information encountered (the "anchor") when making subsequent judgments, even when that information is arbitrary or irrelevant.[4][5]

Beginner: Q: Who first documented anchoring, and when? A: Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, in their 1974 Science paper "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases".[5]

Intermediate: Q: Why does making the first offer generally lead to a better negotiation outcome? A: The first offer sets the reference point that subsequent offers are evaluated against; research across multiple experiments found first offers strongly predict final settlement prices regardless of whether the mover was the buyer or seller.[7]

Intermediate: Q: Why do precise numbers anchor more strongly than round numbers? A: Precise numbers signal that real calculation and expertise went into producing them, which makes the receiving party less willing to push back hard and leads to smaller counter-concessions, even when the precise offer is less extreme than a round alternative.[1]

Senior: Q: Under what conditions does the first-offer advantage disappear or reverse? A: When the receiving party deliberately engages in perspective-taking — actively considering their own reservation price, target, or the other side's alternatives before responding — the first-offer advantage is neutralized. Additionally, low-power negotiators who move first often anchor themselves too conservatively, ending up worse off than if they had waited, specifically when facing high-power counterparts.[2][7]

Senior: Q: How would you structure a first offer in a multi-issue negotiation to maximize anchoring benefit without triggering across-the-board resistance from the counterpart? A: This is an active area of negotiation research; general principles include anchoring on multiple issues rather than just one, using precision on the dimensions you have the strongest justification for, and sequencing which issue is raised first to avoid triggering defensive across-the-board pushback. A full prescriptive framework is still being developed in the current research literature.[8]

Exercises

Easy: Write down the last time you negotiated something (rent, a purchase, a favor). Identify who stated a number first. Would the outcome likely have changed if the other party had spoken first instead?

Easy: Practice converting three round numbers into precise, defensible versions (e.g., "$60,000" → "$61,200" backed by a specific market research source).

Medium: Role-play a salary negotiation with a friend. One person anchors with a round number, the other with a precise number for the identical target value. Compare how the conversation flows differently.

Medium: Research the market rate for a skill you have (freelance rate, salary band) using at least two independent sources. Draft a precise, defensible opening anchor you could realistically state in an actual negotiation.

Hard (project): Design a one-page negotiation prep sheet for yourself that includes: your target number, your reservation price (walk-away point), your BATNA, a precise opening anchor with justification, and three anticipated counter-arguments with responses. Use this template for your next real negotiation and record the outcome.

Cheat Sheet

Glossary

Anchor — The first number or reference point introduced in a negotiation or judgment task, which subsequent estimates or offers get pulled toward.

Anchoring and adjustment heuristic — A mental shortcut where people start from an anchor value and adjust toward what they believe is correct, typically stopping the adjustment too early (insufficient adjustment).[5]

Selective accessibility — An explanation for anchoring where the anchor makes anchor-consistent information easier to recall, biasing judgment even without a conscious "adjustment" process.[5]

BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement) — The outcome you would get if the current negotiation fails entirely; the strength of your BATNA determines your negotiating power.

Reservation price — The worst price or terms you are willing to accept before walking away from a deal.

Distributive negotiation — A negotiation over a single, fixed-value issue (like price), where one party's gain is generally the other's loss.

Integrative (multi-issue) negotiation — A negotiation involving multiple issues simultaneously (salary, benefits, start date), where tradeoffs across issues can create value for both sides.

Perspective-taking — Deliberately considering the situation, alternatives, or reservation values from the other party's (or one's own overlooked) point of view; shown to counteract anchoring effects.[7]

Heuristic — A mental shortcut or rule of thumb that allows fast decisions with limited cognitive effort, at the cost of occasional systematic errors (cognitive biases).[5]

References

1. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases." Science. Summarized in.[5]
2. Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Referenced in.[5]
3. Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. "First Offers as Anchors: The Role of Perspective-Taking and Negotiator Focus." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001. Available via PubMed.[7]
4. Schweinsberg, M. et al. (2012). "The Role of Anchors and Power in Negotiations." ScienceDirect.[9]
5. Northcraft, G. B., & Neale, M. A. Real estate anchoring study, discussed in Horlacher, F. "The Anchoring Effect in Negotiations".[3]
6. Maaravi, Y., Heller, B., & Levy, A. (2023). Study on power and first offers, published in Negotiation Journal, summarized by Harvard Program on Negotiation: "Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers".[2]
7. Harvard Program on Negotiation: "For Effective Price Anchoring, Strive for Precision".[1]
8. Harvard Program on Negotiation: "Negotiation Research Says to Make Stronger First Offers in Multi-Issue Negotiations".[8]
9. SimplyPsychology: "Anchoring Bias and Adjustment Heuristic in Psychology".[10]
10. Chapman, G. B., & Johnson, E. J. "Incorporating the Irrelevant: Anchors in Judgments of Belief and Value".[6]

Sources [1] For Effective Price Anchoring, Strive for Precision https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/dealmaking-daily/negotiation-research-can-use-effective-first-offer-strive-precision-nb/ [2] Power and Negotiation: Advice on First Offers https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/batna/power-and-negotiation-advice-on-first-offers/ [3] the anchoring effect in negotiations https://www.die-mediation.de/media/pdf/4f/4e/7a/Negotiation_SS2014_Friederike_Horlacher_The_Anchoring_Effect.pdf [4] Understanding Anchoring Bias | PDF | Mental Processes https://www.scribd.com/document/729943611/BF3 [5] Anchoring bias | PDF https://id.scribd.com/presentation/964405764/Anchoring-bias [6] Incorporating the irrelevant: Anchors in judgments of belief and value https://gwern.net/doc/psychology/cognitive-bias/2002-chapman.pdf [7] First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus - PubMed https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11642352/ [8] Negotiation Research Says to Make Stronger First Offers in ... https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiation-skills-daily/negotiation-research-you-can-use-make-stronger-first-offers-in-multi-issue-negotiations-nb/ [9] The role of anchors and power in negotiations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103111001880 [10] Anchoring Bias and Adjustment Heuristic in Psychology https://www.simplypsychology.org/what-is-the-anchoring-bias.html [11] [PDF] Toward a Process Model of First Offers and Anchoring in Negotiations https://ncmr.lps.library.cmu.edu/article/574/galley/480/download/ [12] Chapter 10 - Anchoring and adjustment biases https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/behavioral-decision-theory/anchoring-and-adjustment-biases/A614A5B883173290472000FF818034D7 [13] 72354$$$$2 https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=174d3a299c0fd7ab987941b4ecae717e3ce8a8f1 [14] Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 9, No. 6, November 2014, pp. 548–557 https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0384/b75bd56b2c270657ab699e12b3cb67da106c.pdf [15] [PDF] Anchoring Effect and Salary Negotiation - Dean & Francis https://www.deanfrancispress.com/index.php/hc/article/download/3186/HC000192.pdf/12947