Anchoring refers to the assimilation of a numeric estimate toward a previously considered standard. In negotiations, first offers can serve as anchors that influence outcomes. Across 4 experiments, negotiators who made high first offers achieved more profitable outcomes than their counterparts who made more moderate first offers, primarily because first offers served as anchors that affected recipients' counteroffers. The authors note that different starting points yield different estimates, which are biased toward the initial values.

“Our meta-analysis demonstrates that anchoring has a powerful influence on negotiation outcomes. Across the studies in our sample, we find a correlation of 0.497 between opening offers and final negotiation outcomes… researchers have shown that opening offers and demands, insurance policy caps, statutory damage caps, negotiator aspirations, and other ‘first numbers’ can influence negotiation outcomes in transactions and settlements.” “The anchoring effect… means that opening offers and other starting figures exert a powerful impact on negotiation outcomes, even when they are arbitrary or extreme.”

“Negotiation literature thus far has largely ignored the more subtle effects of various levels of first offers (i.e., anchors) within or close to the bargaining zone… They cited research that anchors' demonstrated linear, diminishing, or even contrasting effects depending upon their extremity. Taken together, it appears that their results, as well as those of others, suggest the following: (1) When comparing low to higher anchors, the anchoring response function appears to be linear (i.e., the higher the anchors, the higher the answers; e.g., Galinsky and Mussweiler, 2001).” “The power and peril of first offers in negotiations: a conceptual, meta-analytic, and experimental synthesis (2025, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes)” [article referenced as a meta-analytic synthesis of first offers/anchors and negotiation outcomes].

In this experimental study on job negotiations, researchers found that an implausibly high initial salary request still shifted hiring managers’ offers upward. The abstract reports that candidates who anchored with an extreme request (e.g., US$100,000) received significantly higher subsequent offers than those who did not, even though managers recognized the initial number as unrealistic. The findings support that later salary decisions are adjusted toward the first anchor rather than independently set.

Galinsky and Mussweiler’s widely cited negotiation experiment shows that the party making the first offer exerts strong influence on the final agreement. They report that "initial offers strongly anchor final settlements" and that counterparts "adjust" but remain biased toward that first number. Although not limited to salaries, the mechanism applies to employment negotiations where an employer’s opening offer becomes the reference point for candidates’ counteroffers.

The present research examined whether an extreme initial salary request serves as an anchor in job‐offer negotiations. In a lab experiment, participants played the role of hiring managers evaluating a job candidate. Candidates who jokingly requested an extreme salary (e.g., "What I’d really like is $1 million") received higher initial salary offers than candidates who did not make such a request. Making an extreme initial offer or demand can be effective in negotiations, as it can serve as the anchor for a counteroffer (Galinsky et al., 2005; Galinsky & Mussweiler, 2001).

Building on anchoring research, Galinsky and colleagues showed that negotiators who are exposed to high anchors tend to adjust insufficiently, resulting in final agreements closer to the anchor than they otherwise would be. In dyadic negotiation simulations, recipients of high first offers conceded more and made counteroffers that were biased toward the initial figure, consistent with the anchoring-and-adjustment model of judgment.

Tversky and Kahneman’s anchoring paradigm is extended to negotiation-like judgments by showing that people start from an initial value and "adjust" away from it, but adjustment is typically insufficient. The paper concludes that judgments remain biased toward the starting value, even when participants know it may be arbitrary. This provides the core psychological mechanism by which job candidates’ salary expectations are drawn toward an employer’s initial salary anchor.

A significant body of research indicates that negotiators can enhance their outcomes by presenting initial offers in negotiations. A well-documented rationale for the positive correlation between initial and final outcomes is the anchoring and adjustment heuristic, which posits that individuals base their estimates on an initial value (the anchor) and then adjust insufficiently from it until reaching a final estimate. When sellers present aggressive initial offers, buyers tend to anchor on these elevated figures and make insufficient adjustments in their value estimations, resulting in higher counteroffers and final outcomes compared to scenarios where sellers make lower initial offers.

“This dissertation proposed and undertook the meta-analysis of the anchoring effect, which utilizes a numeric suggestion to guide subsequent judgments of a target question… Anchoring is thought to operate through a selective accessibility function, such that one who receives an anchor then is primed to access specific information consistent with the number, which in turn pulls a final judgment closer to the anchoring point (Strack & Mussweiler, 1997).” “A total of eighty-four effect sizes (Pearson's r) were calculated from the literature… The resulting mean weighted effect size among all included anchoring studies was r = .401, with a corrected correlation estimate of .558… The meaningfulness of the anchor proved to significantly strengthen the effect.”

Reporting on laboratory research, the APA Monitor describes how first offers act as anchors in hiring: it notes that in a University of Idaho study, even a jokingly extreme initial salary request "anchored" managers’ subsequent offers, leading to higher final offers than in a control condition. The article explains that this effect occurs because decision makers "adjust insufficiently" away from an initial number in setting compensation, showing how later offers are pulled toward that anchor.

“The anchoring effect is a cognitive bias that describes the common human tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information offered (the ‘anchor’) when making decisions. Especially in negotiations around price, the party who makes the first offer often gets the lion’s share of the value. That can be due to the anchoring effect, or the tendency for the first offer to ‘anchor’ the bargaining that follows in its direction, even if the offer recipient thinks the offer is out of line.” “In salary negotiations, job candidates are often at a disadvantage relative to the hiring organization. Due to the well-documented anchoring effect, the first figure introduced into the discussion tends to strongly influence the salary expectations… the wage or wage range cited by employers is likely to serve as a powerful anchor from which candidates adjust.”

The first offer can serve as an anchor for counter offers. The use of anchors has been shown to influence the first offer in a negotiation as well as the outcome. However, if the employee waits for the employer to initiate salary negotiations, the employer can set anchor points in the initial offer. In Thorsteinson's experiment, participants made a salary offer like a candidate after receiving a relevant and plausible anchor. They found significantly higher wage offers in the high anchor condition than in the control group (low wage offer). Based on the persistence of the anchoring effect, the initial offer can significantly impact the negotiation outcome over time.

A working-paper version of Galinsky et al.’s research summarizes that "first offers act as powerful anchors that strongly influence the final outcome" of negotiations. The authors emphasize that negotiators receiving a first offer "adjust" their counteroffers from that anchor, but the adjustment is incomplete, resulting in final agreements closer to the opener’s position. This dynamic maps onto salary talks in which candidates calibrate their expectations and counters around the employer’s first number.

Anchoring effects in social judgment occur when a numeric value that comes to mind affects judgments independent of its relevance. Strack and Mussweiler show that once a numeric anchor is introduced, estimates are biased toward that value because people selectively access anchor-consistent information. This mechanism helps explain why negotiators often adjust their estimates and expectations insufficiently away from an initial offer, thereby assimilating their judgments toward the anchor.

The anchor effect says that people have a tendency to rely too heavily on the first piece of information they were presented with (the “anchor”) when making decisions and subsequent judgements. In this way, a deliberately high starting point can strongly affect the range of possible counteroffers. To show that anchoring can work during salary negotiations, the article evidences a University of Idaho lab study where they tested the use of anchoring the conversation by launching with an outrageously high number. The results, published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology in 2011, proved that even implausibly high anchors coloured the managers’ decisions: if a candidate had asked for $100,000, he or she was offered an average of $35,383, compared to $32,463 in the control group.

Anchoring is the tendency to give too much weight to the first number put on the table and then inadequately adjust from that starting point. When your counterpart has dropped an anchor, the first and perhaps most important step is to recognize the move. A common mistake is to respond with a counteroffer before defusing the other side’s anchor. The article notes that the best predictor of the final deal price is often the midpoint of the first semi‑reasonable offer and counteroffer, highlighting how initial anchors shape the range within which later offers and expectations move.

Harvard’s Program on Negotiation explains: "the anchoring bias describes the common tendency to give too much weight to the first number put forth in a discussion and then inadequately adjust from that starting point, or the 'anchor.'" It notes that research shows negotiators are strongly affected by anchors and that "research on the anchoring bias has shown that negotiators may be able to gain an edge by making the first offer and anchoring the discussion in their favor." This directly supports the idea that a first salary figure influences later expectations and adjustments.

The reason behind the advice to “make the first offer” stems from the anchoring effect that occurs when an offer is presented. The term 'anchor' refers to the tendency to rely too heavily on the initial piece of information received, a cognitive bias inherent in all individuals. In negotiations around price, when you lack sufficient information on a topic and someone provides data as a reference, our adaptable minds tend to rely heavily on readily available information, making that initial figure an effective anchor.

In the section on negotiations, the article summarizes experimental work: "In the negotiation process anchoring serves to determine an accepted starting point for the subsequent negotiations." It adds that "multiple studies have shown that initial offers have a stronger influence on the outcome of negotiations than subsequent counteroffers" and that a deliberate starting point "can strongly affect the range of possible counteroffers." This describes candidates adjusting toward an initial offer anchor before further moves occur.

Experimental work by Adam D. Galinsky and Thomas Mussweiler on negotiation shows that first offers serve as strong anchors: higher first offers lead to higher final settlements and lower first offers lead to lower outcomes. In these studies, negotiators receiving an initial numeric offer adjust their counteroffers and reservation prices toward the anchor, even when the anchor is arbitrary, indicating that expectations and subsequent moves are pulled toward the initial number.

During salary negotiations, some career advisors recommend that the job seeker allow the company to make the initial salary offer. Proponents of this strategy argue that the first number put on the table often serves as an anchor that influences the rest of the negotiation, affecting subsequent counteroffers and expectations.

“The anchoring effect means the first number in any negotiation, budget round or performance review disproportionately shapes every judgment… At work it sabotages salary negotiations… by keeping everyone unconsciously tethered to the first figure mentioned.” “Whoever names a number first sets the anchor. If a candidate says £58,000, the employer negotiates from that point even if their budget was £66,000. The final outcome typically sits closer to the opening figure than to the candidate’s true market value. The practical advice: let the employer name a number first, or open high with market data to justify your position.”

“Overcoming outdated salary anchoring in negotiations means shifting the focus from your previous earnings to the true value you bring to a new role… Your past CTC is just history. Not your current worth.” “The article warns that when employers say ‘this is what we can offer,’ that number can become an anchor that shapes the rest of the negotiation unless candidates challenge it or ask if it is the best they can do, reflecting concern that candidates otherwise adjust toward the employer’s initial salary figure.”

The practitioner article notes that people "tend to be influenced more by the first relevant data they receive than by subsequent data" and advises making an initial offer early because "the first offer in a negotiation often sets the tone for the entire process." It explains that effective anchoring shifts "the spectrum of theoretically acceptable values" so that the other party’s counteroffers and final settlement are pulled toward that first number, including in salary negotiations.

A top comment explains: “Anchoring Bias is the tendency to use initially presented information to make subsequent decisions. It is a widely studied psychological phenomenon, useful in salary negotiation, haggling, and sales.” “The commenter advises that in salary negotiations, always offer the first figure, implicitly assuming that the other party’s expectations and counteroffers will be adjusted toward that initial anchor if they do not.”