Why the First Number Wins (and How to Make It Yours)
In 1974, Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman published a study that revolutionised our understanding of human judgment. They asked participants to estimate the percentage of African countries in the United Nations after spinning a wheel of fortune. The wheel was rigged to land on either 10 or 65. Participants who saw 10 estimated 25% on average. Those who saw 65 estimated 45%. The random number on the wheel — completely irrelevant to the question — anchored their estimates by 20 percentage points.
This is the anchoring effect, and it is the single most powerful psychological force in negotiation. The first number mentioned in a negotiation sets the range for everything that follows. Expert negotiators understand this and use it deliberately. Amateurs ignore it and wonder why they consistently settle at the other party's preferred number.
---
Learning Objectives
Readers will learn:
The cognitive psychology behind why anchors work even when you know about them, How to set effective anchors — credible, ambitious, and strategically positioned, How to counter the other party's anchor without being pulled into their frame, Advanced anchoring techniques: multiple anchors, decoy anchors, and non-monetary anchors, and The relationship between anchoring, framing, and loss aversion in shaping negotiation outcomes.
---
1. The Science of Anchoring
Cognitive Psychology: Why Anchors Work
Anchoring is not a sign of stupidity or lack of information. It affects experts and novices alike, even when they are explicitly warned about it. The effect operates through two cognitive mechanisms:
1. Selective Accessibility: When an anchor is presented, your brain searches for information consistent with that number. If the anchor is $1M, you think of reasons why $1M is reasonable. If the anchor is $500K, you think of reasons why $500K is reasonable. The anchor shapes which information you access.
2. Insufficient Adjustment: When you know an anchor is too high or too low, you adjust away from it. But you typically adjust insufficiently — you stop adjusting before reaching the true value. Starting from $1M and adjusting down, you stop at $800K instead of the true value of $600K.
The Robustness of Anchoring
Research demonstrates that anchoring persists even when:
The anchor is obviously arbitrary (the wheel of fortune study), Participants are experts in the domain, Participants are warned about the anchoring effect, Participants have strong incentives to be accurate, and The anchor comes from an untrustworthy source.
This robustness means you cannot simply "ignore" the other party's anchor. You must actively counter it.
Anchoring in Negotiation: The Research
Studies by Galinsky and Mussweiler (2001) showed that:
The party who makes the first offer achieves better outcomes, First offers predict final outcomes more strongly than any other negotiation variable, The first offer effect holds across cultures, industries, and experience levels, and Even extreme anchors work if they are even remotely credible.
---
2. Setting Effective Anchors
Principle 1: Anchor First (Usually)
Research consistently shows that making the first offer is advantageous. The first offer anchors the negotiation and pulls the final settlement toward it.
When to anchor first:
You have good market information, You are confident in the other party's reservation price range, The negotiation is primarily distributive (price-focused), and You have credible justification for your anchor.
When to let the other party anchor first:
You lack information about their reservation price, Their anchor will reveal their expectations (information value exceeds anchoring cost), The negotiation is primarily integrative (relationship-focused), and You suspect their anchor will be so extreme that it backfires.
Principle 2: Be Ambitious but Credible
The optimal anchor is ambitious — near the edge of the ZOPA that favours you — but credible enough that the other party engages rather than walks away.
The credibility test: Can you provide a specific, factual justification for your anchor? If yes, it's credible. If your justification is "because that's what I want," it's not.
Examples of credible anchors:
"We're proposing $1.2M, based on the RICS published rate guide for this scope and the three comparable projects we've benchmarked.", "Our asking price is $4.5M, reflecting the average price per square foot in this district over the last 6 months ($285/sqft × 15,800 sqft).", and "We're offering $85K, which is the median salary for this role in this market according to three independent salary surveys.".
Examples of non-credible anchors:
"We want $5M" (no justification), "The price is $10M, take it or leave it" (aggressive without basis), and "We need a 50% discount" (arbitrary).
Principle 3: Use Precise Numbers
Research by Janiszewski and Uy (2008) found that precise anchors ($375,500) are more effective than round anchors ($375,000). Precise numbers appear more researched and credible, and they leave less room for adjustment.
Practical application: Instead of anchoring at "$1M," anchor at "$987,500." The precision signals that you've done detailed analysis, and the other party adjusts less because the number feels specific rather than arbitrary.
Principle 4: Justify Before Stating
Present your justification before stating the number. This frames the anchor as a logical conclusion rather than an arbitrary position.
Structure: "Based on [data/standard/comparison], the appropriate value is [anchor]."
Example: "Based on the published RICS rates, our audited cost data, and three comparable projects in this market, the fair value for this scope is $1.2M."
---
3. Countering the Other Party's Anchor
Technique 1: Reject and Reframe
When the other party makes an extreme anchor, explicitly reject it and reframe with your own anchor.
Example:
Other party: "Our price is $5M.", and You: "That number is not a credible basis for discussion. Based on market data and comparable projects, the appropriate range is $2.5-3M. Let's work from there.".
Key: Do not negotiate from their anchor. Do not counter at $4M (that's adjusting from their anchor). Counter with your own well-justified anchor.
Technique 2: The "How" Question
Use Chris Voss's calibrated question to challenge their anchor without confrontation:
Example:
Other party: "Our price is $5M.", and You: "How did you arrive at that number?".
This forces them to justify their anchor. If they can't, the anchor loses credibility. If they provide weak justification, you can challenge specific elements.
Technique 3: Information Condition
Before responding to their anchor, gather information. Ask questions that reveal their underlying interests and constraints:
"What is driving that price point?", "What assumptions are built into that number?", and "What would change if we adjusted the scope/timeline/volume?".
The more you understand their anchor, the better you can counter it.
Technique 4: The Shock and Redirect
When faced with an extreme anchor, express surprise (genuine, not theatrical) and redirect:
Example:
Other party: "We need a 40% discount.", and You: "That's significantly outside anything we've seen in this market. Let me share what comparable arrangements look like...".
Technique 5: Ignore and Anchor
Sometimes the best response to an extreme anchor is to simply ignore it and present your own:
Example:
Other party: "Our asking price is $10M.", and You: "Let me share our analysis. Based on the independent valuation, comparable transactions, and current market conditions, we believe the fair value is $4.5M.".
You don't acknowledge their anchor, you don't argue against it, you simply present your own well-justified alternative.
---
4. Advanced Anchoring Techniques
Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers (MESO)
Instead of a single anchor, present multiple offers that are equivalent in value to you but differ in structure. This technique:
Anchors on multiple dimensions simultaneously, Reveals the other party's preferences (which offer they prefer), Appears flexible while maintaining your position, and Reduces the likelihood of rejection (multiple options vs one).
Example:
Option A: $100/unit, net 30, 12-month contract, Option B: $92/unit, net 15, 24-month contract, and Option C: $108/unit, net 60, 6-month contract.
All three are equivalent in value to you. The other party's choice reveals what they value most.
The Decoy Anchor
Present a deliberately unattractive option (the decoy) that makes your preferred option look better. Based on the decoy effect from behavioural economics:
Example:
Option A: $95K (basic, 6-month support), Option B: $110K (standard, 12-month support) ← your preferred option, and Option C: $130K (premium, 24-month support) ← the decoy.
Option C makes Option B look reasonable. Without Option C, the buyer might find $110K expensive. With it, $110K looks like the sensible middle ground.
Non-Monetary Anchoring
Anchors don't have to be numbers. You can anchor on:
Terms: "Our standard is net 15 with 2% discount for early payment.", Scope: "Our typical engagement includes [scope], which is what we're proposing.", Timeline: "Our standard delivery is 6 weeks from order confirmation.", and Quality: "Our standard is ISO 9001 certified with third-party inspection.".
Non-monetary anchors shape expectations on dimensions that may be more important than price.
Anchoring Through Framing
How you frame the anchor affects its impact:
Gain frame: "This investment returns $3M over 5 years" (positive), Loss frame: "Not making this investment costs $3M over 5 years" (negative, more persuasive due to loss aversion), Comparison frame: "At $500K, this is 15% below the market average of $588K" (relative), and Total cost frame: "At $500K initial + $50K/year maintenance, the 5-year TCO is $750K — 20% below the alternative at $940K" (comprehensive).
---
5. Real Business Examples
Construction
A general contractor is negotiating a lump sum bid for a commercial tower. The competitor's bid is rumoured to be $42M. The contractor's cost estimate is $38M with a target margin of 8% ($41M).
Anchoring strategy: Instead of bidding $41M (which would be above the competitor), the contractor anchors at $39.5M with a detailed breakdown showing value engineering savings. The anchor is below the competitor's rumoured bid and above their cost. The employer, anchored on $39.5M, perceives the competitor's $42M as expensive. The contractor wins at $40.2M after negotiation — above their $41M target was unrealistic, but $40.2M still gives a 5.8% margin.
Software
A SaaS company is negotiating an enterprise licence with a Fortune 500 client. The client expects to pay around $200K/year based on previous vendor experiences.
Anchoring strategy: The SaaS company opens with a $450K/year proposal, justified by a detailed ROI analysis showing $2.5M in annual savings. The client is initially shocked but engages because the ROI analysis is credible. After negotiation, they settle at $310K/year — 55% above the client's original expectation, achieved through effective anchoring.
Healthcare
A medical device company is negotiating with a hospital network for surgical robots. The company's list price is $2.5M per unit. The hospital's budget is $1.8M.
Anchoring strategy: The company opens by presenting a $3.2M "full solution" (robot + training + 5-year service + consumables), then offers the $2.5M robot-only option as the "standard" choice. The hospital, anchored on $3.2M, perceives $2.5M as reasonable. They settle at $2.2M with a 3-year service contract — above the hospital's $1.8M budget but below list price, with the service contract providing ongoing revenue.
Sales
A B2B sales representative is negotiating a 3-year service contract. The buyer asks for "your best price."
Anchoring strategy: Instead of discounting, the rep anchors on value: "Our standard 3-year contract is $1.2M, which includes [detailed scope]. Based on your requirements, I recommend the enhanced package at $1.5M, which adds [additional scope] and delivers an additional $800K in value over the contract term." The buyer, anchored on $1.2M-$1.5M, negotiates to $1.3M for the enhanced package — a 30% premium over the standard price.
---
6. Case Study: The Manufacturing Price War
Situation
Two manufacturing companies — ComponentCo (supplier) and AssemblyCorp (buyer) — were negotiating a 3-year supply contract for precision components. The relationship had deteriorated after AssemblyCorp demanded a 15% price reduction in the previous round.
Problem
ComponentCo's current price: $50/unit, AssemblyCorp's demand: $42.5/unit (15% reduction), ComponentCo's cost: $38/unit, ComponentCo's BATNA: Export to European buyers at $48/unit (with higher logistics cost), and AssemblyCorp's BATNA: Alternative supplier at $46/unit (with 6-month qualification delay).
ZOPA analysis:
ComponentCo's reservation price: $44 (need margin above BATNA), AssemblyCorp's reservation price: $46 (alternative supplier cost), and ZOPA: $44-$46 (very narrow).
Negotiation Strategy
ComponentCo's sales director used advanced anchoring:
1. Pre-emptive anchoring: Before the negotiation meeting, ComponentCo sent a market analysis report showing that precision component prices had increased 8% industry-wide due to raw material costs. This established a market context where price increases — not decreases — were the norm.
2. Opening anchor: ComponentCo opened at $52/unit (above current price), justified by the raw material index increase. This was aggressive but credible (supported by published indices).
3. Reframing AssemblyCorp's anchor: When AssemblyCorp reiterated their $42.5 demand, ComponentCo did not negotiate from $42.5. Instead, they asked: "How did you arrive at $42.5?" AssemblyCorp's response revealed the 15% was arbitrary — a management directive, not a market-based calculation.
4. Issue expansion: ComponentCo introduced additional issues:
Volume commitment: Higher volume = lower unit price, Payment terms: Net 15 vs net 45 = financing cost saving, and Inventory management: Vendor-managed inventory = AssemblyCorp's working capital saving.
5. MESO presentation: ComponentCo offered three options:
Option A: $48/unit, net 30, annual volume commitment, Option B: $46/unit, net 15, 3-year volume commitment, VMI, and Option C: $44/unit, net 15, 3-year commitment, VMI, exclusivity.
Mistakes
AssemblyCorp's mistake: Anchoring at an arbitrary 15% reduction without market justification. This made their anchor easy to discredit., and ComponentCo's initial mistake (previous round): Accepting the 15% reduction in the prior negotiation without challenging the anchor, establishing a precedent..
Outcome
Settlement: $45/unit (within the ZOPA, closer to AssemblyCorp's reservation), Terms: 3-year contract, net 15, VMI included, Volume: 15% higher than previous year, Exclusivity: Not granted (ComponentCo retained European export option), and Net result: ComponentCo's revenue increased despite lower unit price (higher volume + VMI efficiency).
Lessons Learned
Anchors must be justified. Arbitrary anchors (15% reduction) are easily discredited. Data-supported anchors (raw material index) are credible and effective., Don't negotiate from the other party's anchor. ComponentCo refused to start from $42.5 and instead anchored at $52, shifting the entire negotiation range., Issue expansion can overcome narrow ZOPAs. The $44-$46 ZOPA was expanded by adding volume, payment terms, and VMI., Pre-negotiation framing matters. The market analysis report sent before the meeting established a context of price increases, making AssemblyCorp's reduction demand seem unreasonable., and MESO reveals preferences. AssemblyCorp's choice of Option B (without exclusivity) revealed that they valued flexibility over price — information that informed future negotiations..
---
7. The Relationship Between Anchoring and Other Biases
Anchoring and Framing
Anchoring sets the number; framing sets the context. Together, they are the most powerful combination in negotiation.
Example: "Based on the RICS rate guide, the appropriate price is $1.2M" (anchor + objective frame). "At $1.2M, you're getting a 15% discount from market rates" (anchor + gain frame). "Not proceeding at $1.2M means paying $1.8M with the alternative supplier" (anchor + loss frame).
Anchoring and Loss Aversion
Combine anchoring with loss aversion for maximum effect. Frame the anchor as avoiding a loss rather than achieving a gain:
"At $1.2M, you avoid the $600K premium of going with the alternative supplier.", and "By committing now at $1.2M, you lock in the current rate before the announced 8% increase takes effect.".
Anchoring and the Endowment Effect
The endowment effect causes people to overvalue what they already have. In negotiation, this means the other party overvalues their current position. You can counter this by anchoring on the cost of not changing:
"Your current supplier's price of $55/unit is $7 above market. Over 3 years at your volume, that's $420K in avoidable cost.".
Anchoring and Confirmation Bias
Once an anchor is set, the other party seeks information confirming it. If you anchor at $1.2M with strong justification, the other party will unconsciously look for reasons $1.2M is reasonable. If their anchor is $800K, they'll look for reasons $800K is reasonable. The first credible anchor wins the confirmation bias battle.
---
8. Practical Tools
Anchoring Preparation Checklist
[ ] What is my target outcome?, [ ] What is my reservation price?, [ ] What is the estimated ZOPA?, [ ] What is my opening anchor? (Ambitious, credible, precise), [ ] What is my justification for the anchor? (Data, standards, comparables), [ ] What is the other party's likely anchor?, [ ] How will I counter their anchor? (Reject, reframe, how-question, ignore), [ ] What framing will I use? (Gain, loss, comparison, TCO), [ ] Should I use MESO? (Multiple equivalent offers), and [ ] Should I use a decoy? (Unattractive option to make preferred option look better).
Anchor Testing Script
ANCHOR TESTING SCRIPT
My anchor: $____________________, Is it ambitious? (Above my target, near ZOPA edge) Y/N, Is it credible? (Supported by data/standards) Y/N, Is it precise? (Specific number, not round) Y/N, Justification: _________________________________, Framing: _______________________________________, If rejected, my fallback anchor: $_______________, and If they anchor first, my response: _______________.
Red Flags: Anchor Warning Signs
The other party's anchor is accompanied by "take it or leave it" (attempting to prevent adjustment), The other party's anchor is round ($1M, not $987K) — may be less researched, The other party's anchor changes between meetings — they're testing your reaction, Your anchor is immediately accepted — you anchored too low (left value on table), and The other party counters with an equally extreme anchor in the opposite direction — they're anchoring back.
---
9. Common Mistakes
Mistake 1: Not Anchoring First
Why it occurs: Fear of revealing information, or belief that letting the other party go first provides information.
How experts avoid it: They anchor first when they have good information. The research is clear — first offers predict final outcomes. The information lost by anchoring first is usually less valuable than the anchoring advantage gained.
Mistake 2: Anchoring Too Conservatively
Why it occurs: Fear of offending the other party or appearing unreasonable.
How experts avoid it: They anchor ambitiously — near the edge of the ZOPA that favours them. They understand that the anchor pulls the settlement toward it, so a higher anchor (for sellers) or lower anchor (for buyers) produces better outcomes.
Mistake 3: Anchoring Without Justification
Why it occurs: Negotiators state a number without supporting data, hoping confidence alone will carry it.
How experts avoid it: They always present justification before the number. "Based on [data], the appropriate value is [anchor]."
Mistake 4: Negotiating From the Other Party's Anchor
Why it occurs: The other party states a number, and you instinctively counter from that number rather than from your own anchor.
How experts avoid it: They explicitly reject the other party's anchor and present their own. They do not split the difference between anchors — they reframe with their own well-justified position.
Mistake 5: Using Round Numbers
Why it occurs: Round numbers are easy to generate and feel natural.
How experts avoid it: They use precise numbers ($987,500 not $1M) because precision signals research and reduces the other party's adjustment.
Mistake 6: Anchoring Outside the ZOPA
Why it occurs: Overconfidence leads to extreme anchors that the other party cannot accept.
How experts avoid it: They anchor ambitiously but within the credible range. An anchor so extreme that the other party walks away is a failed anchor.
Mistake 7: Failing to Counter the Other Party's Anchor
Why it occurs: The other party's anchor creates a reference point, and the negotiator adjusts from it rather than rejecting it.
How experts avoid it: They use the reject-and-reframe technique: "That number is not credible. Based on [data], the appropriate range is [my anchor]."
Mistake 8: Revealing Your Anchor Too Early in Multi-Issue Negotiations
Why it occurs: Eager to establish position, negotiators anchor on price before exploring other issues.
How experts avoid it: They explore interests and issues before anchoring. Once they understand the full scope, they anchor with a comprehensive package, not just a price.
Mistake 9: Not Adjusting the Anchor When New Information Emerges
Why it occurs: The initial anchor becomes a commitment, and negotiators fear that adjusting it signals weakness.
How experts avoid it: They adjust anchors when new information justifies it: "Based on the additional scope you've described, our revised proposal is [new anchor]."
Mistake 10: Ignoring Non-Price Anchors
Why it occurs: Focus on price to the exclusion of other terms.
How experts avoid it: They anchor on multiple dimensions — price, terms, timeline, scope. Non-price anchors shape expectations on dimensions that may be more valuable than price.
---
10. Advanced Expert Tips
The Declining Anchor Technique
Start with an ambitious anchor, then make decreasingly large concessions. The pattern of decreasing concessions signals that you're approaching your reservation price. This technique, studied by Ames and Mason, produces better outcomes than equal-sized concessions.
Example: Anchor at $100, concede to $95 (-$5), then $92 (-$3), then $90.5 (-$1.5), then $90 (-$0.5). The decreasing increments signal approaching the floor.
Anchoring in Email Negotiations
Email negotiations are particularly susceptible to anchoring because there are no social cues to moderate the effect. Written anchors feel more formal and authoritative. Use this to your advantage by sending well-justified written anchors, but be aware that the other party's written anchor will also have heightened impact.
The Bracketing Technique
If you know the other party's likely anchor, bracket it. If they're likely to anchor at $500K and your target is $800K, anchor at $1.1M. The midpoint of the two anchors is $800K — your target.
Cultural Variations in Anchoring
Research shows cultural differences in anchoring effectiveness:
Western cultures (US, UK): Direct, ambitious anchors are expected and respected., East Asian cultures (Japan, China): Extreme anchors may cause loss of face. Moderate anchors with relationship-building are more effective., and Middle Eastern cultures: Ambitious anchors are expected as part of the negotiation ritual. Counter-anchors should be equally ambitious..
---
Key Takeaways
The first credible number wins. Make the first offer when you have good information., Be ambitious but credible. Anchor near the edge of the ZOPA that favours you, with strong justification., Use precise numbers. $987,500 is more effective than $1M., Justify before stating. Present your data, then your number., Never negotiate from the other party's anchor. Reject and reframe with your own., Use framing to strengthen your anchor. Loss frames are more powerful than gain frames., MESO provides multiple anchors simultaneously. Equivalent offers reveal preferences while anchoring., Anchoring works even when the other party knows about it. You cannot "ignore" an anchor — you must counter it., Non-price anchors shape expectations on valuable dimensions. Anchor on terms, scope, and timeline, not just price., and Decreasing concessions signal approaching your floor. Start with large concessions, then decrease..
---
FAQ
1. Should I make the first offer or let the other party go first?
Research consistently shows that making the first offer is advantageous when you have good market information. The first offer anchors the negotiation and predicts the final outcome. However, if you lack information about the other party's reservation price, letting them go first can reveal valuable information.
2. How extreme should my anchor be?
Your anchor should be ambitious — near the edge of the ZOPA that favours you — but credible. If the anchor is so extreme that the other party walks away, it has failed. If it's so conservative that it's immediately accepted, you've left value on the table. The optimal anchor is the most extreme number the other party will still engage with.
3. What do I do if the other party's anchor is absurd?
Explicitly reject it: "That number is not a credible basis for discussion." Then present your own well-justified anchor. Do not counter from their number — that anchors you to their frame. Use the "how" question: "How did you arrive at that number?" to challenge their justification.
4. Why do precise numbers work better than round numbers?
Precise numbers ($987,500) appear more researched and specific than round numbers ($1M). Research by Janiszewski and Uy shows that people adjust less from precise anchors because the specificity signals expertise and careful analysis. Round numbers feel arbitrary and invite adjustment.
5. Can I anchor on things other than price?
Yes. You can anchor on payment terms, delivery timeline, scope, warranty, quality standards, or any negotiable dimension. Non-price anchors are often more effective because they shape expectations on dimensions the other party may not have considered.
6. What is MESO and how does it relate to anchoring?
MESO (Multiple Equivalent Simultaneous Offers) involves presenting multiple offers, each equivalent in value to you. Each offer serves as an anchor on different dimensions. The other party's choice reveals their preferences while you maintain your position. MESO is particularly effective when you're uncertain about what the other party values most.
7. How do I avoid being anchored by the other party?
You cannot completely avoid the anchoring effect — it operates unconsciously even when you're aware of it. However, you can mitigate it by: explicitly rejecting extreme anchors, presenting your own counter-anchor with strong justification, focusing on objective criteria rather than the other party's number, and taking a break to reset your reference point.
8. Does anchoring work in email and written negotiations?
Yes, and often more powerfully. Written anchors feel more formal and authoritative, and there are no social cues to moderate the effect. Use this to your advantage by sending well-justified written anchors. Be aware that the other party's written anchor will also have heightened impact on you.
9. How does anchoring interact with loss aversion?
Anchoring sets the reference point; loss aversion makes deviations from that reference point feel like losses. If you anchor at $1M and the other party perceives paying more than $1M as a "loss," they'll resist going above $1M more strongly than they would without the anchor. Combine anchoring with loss framing for maximum effect.
10. What is the declining concession technique?
Start with an ambitious anchor, then make decreasingly large concessions ($5, $3, $1.5, $0.5). The decreasing increments signal that you're approaching your reservation price, encouraging the other party to settle. This technique produces better outcomes than equal-sized concessions because it conveys approaching a floor.
11. Are there cultural differences in anchoring?
Yes. In Western cultures, direct and ambitious anchors are expected. In East Asian cultures, extreme anchors may cause loss of face — moderate anchors are more effective. In Middle Eastern cultures, ambitious anchors are expected as part of the negotiation ritual, and counter-anchors should be equally ambitious.
12. What if my anchor is immediately accepted?
If your anchor is accepted without negotiation, you anchored too conservatively — you left value on the table. While you cannot undo the accepted offer, you can learn from it: next time, anchor more ambitiously. You can also attempt to add conditions: "Great, we're aligned on price. Now let's discuss the terms..."
---
References
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). "Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases." Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131., Galinsky, A. D., & Mussweiler, T. (2001). "First Offers as Anchors: The Role of Perspective-Taking and Adjusting." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657-669., Janiszewski, C., & Uy, D. (2008). "Precision Makes a Difference." Journal of Consumer Research, 35(5), 793-803., Fisher, R., Ury, W., & Patton, B. (2011). Getting to Yes (3rd ed.). Penguin Books., Voss, C. (2016). Never Split the Difference. Harper Business., Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux., Malhotra, D., & Bazerman, M. (2007). Negotiation Genius. Bantam Books., Thompson, L. L. (2012). The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator (5th ed.). Pearson., Ames, D. R., & Mason, M. F. (2015). "Tug of War: The Constraint of Anchoring." Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, 8(4), 241-257., and Shell, G. R. (2018). Bargaining for Advantage (3rd ed.). Penguin Books..