Negotiation Strategies, Business Negotiation August 6, 2025
How to Handle Anchoring in NegotiationAnchoring is one of the most powerful and persistent tactics in negotiation. Whether it’s a salary number, a project timeline, or a contract price, the first figure placed on the table often exerts a gravitational pull on everything that follows. This phenomenon—known as anchoring bias—can significantly shape the zone of possible agreement, even if the number is arbitrary or extreme.
As Dr. Chester L. Karrass taught, “Negotiation is not a battle but a process,” and understanding the psychological levers behind anchoring is key to mastering that process. This article explores the anchoring tactic in depth: how it works, why it works, and how professionals can respond with clarity and strategy—without losing control of the conversation.
Anchoring is a well-documented cognitive bias where the first number or term introduced becomes a reference point—an anchor—for all subsequent judgments. Even when that first offer is unreasonable, people tend to unconsciously adjust their expectations around it. This effect occurs not just in negotiation, but across a wide range of decision-making situations, from pricing to planning. In negotiation, anchoring distorts perceptions of value and fairness, making it a favored tactic for those who understand how minds work under pressure.
Once an anchor is set, it becomes difficult to ignore. Research shows that even experts struggle to fully detach from an initial figure, adjusting only slightly rather than re-evaluating the situation objectively. A low anchor can make even a modest concession seem generous; a high anchor can shift expectations upward. This influence is often subconscious, which is why it’s so important to recognize and neutralize it quickly.
Anchors work because they give negotiators a frame of reference—especially in complex or ambiguous situations. When you’re uncertain about what something is “worth,” the first number you see becomes a mental benchmark. That’s why skilled negotiators who use anchoring don’t just throw out random figures; they do so strategically, aiming to define the playing field. Without preparation or a clear sense of your own walk-away point, that anchor can quietly become the foundation of a bad deal.
Making the first offer allows you to establish the terms of the discussion. If your number is credible, well-prepared, and confidently delivered, it can steer the entire negotiation closer to your ideal outcome. Anchoring gives you a head start in shaping perceptions of fairness, value, and scope. As Dr. Karrass emphasized, “The best negotiators are prepared”—and with proper preparation, you may benefit by going first.
The initial offer often defines the outer boundary of what seems reasonable, effectively shifting the zone of possible agreement in your favor. Even if the other party counters, they tend to stay within the framework you established. This is why anchoring is a form of silent influence—it limits the conversation before it's even had. But while powerful, it’s also a double-edged sword if not used thoughtfully.
Going first can backfire if your anchor lacks credibility or is disconnected from market realities. A poorly chosen opening figure may signal inexperience, appear unserious, or even insult the other party. Worse, you may unintentionally anchor yourself too low and leave value on the table. The KARRASS approach emphasizes understanding timing and context—knowing when not to go first can be just as powerful as knowing when to seize the initiative.
One of the clearest signs you’re facing an anchoring tactic is an early offer that comes in unusually high or low—often before full information has been exchanged. This move is meant to set the tone and steer your expectations. You may hear confident language like “based on industry standards” or “this is typical for our clients,” even if there’s little evidence to back it up. When this happens, pause. Anchoring is most effective when you respond too quickly or without challenge.
While most people associate anchoring with numbers, the tactic isn’t limited to price. It can appear in proposed timelines, resource allocation, contract terms, or even risk-sharing. For example, someone might suggest a two-week delivery timeline that’s unrealistic—knowing full well it will be negotiated up. But now, anything longer than two weeks feels like a concession, even if four weeks is the real standard. Anchors reshape not just what’s offered, but what feels acceptable.
A supplier offers their service at a “discounted” $250,000 price before the client even names a budget—framing all negotiations around that inflated baseline. A job candidate requests a salary “in the range of $115,000–$130,000,” even though their true expectations start at $100,000. In both cases, the goal is to prime the other party to negotiate within that anchor range. Whether the figure is accurate or not, its mere presence exerts pressure on the conversation.
Dr. Karrass taught that good negotiators avoid reacting emotionally to tactics. Instead, they reframe. When you’re hit with an anchor, don’t reject it outright—acknowledge it, then redirect the conversation toward objective standards. Ask for justification. Pose clarifying questions. Anchors lose their power when they’re exposed to logic and sunlight.
One effective technique is to make a counter-anchor that’s equally firm but more grounded in data. Another is to pivot entirely, saying: “Let’s set that number aside for now and talk about what the full package includes.” You can also use silence strategically—many anchors are designed to provoke quick responses. A thoughtful pause signals that you won’t be rushed into accepting their frame.
The most powerful way to neutralize an anchor is by appealing to facts: market data, benchmarks, previous agreements, or comparable offers. By redirecting the negotiation to shared standards of fairness, you reduce the emotional stickiness of the anchor. When both sides focus on verifiable information, extreme anchors stand out for what they are: tactical starting points, not objective truths.
Anchoring isn’t inherently manipulative—it depends on how and why it’s used. If your first offer is based on careful preparation and aligned with real-world expectations, anchoring can be a legitimate strategy. You’re not tricking the other party; you’re starting the discussion in a way that favors your goals. What matters is transparency, tone, and flexibility in how you respond to feedback.
There are moments—particularly in high-stakes or high-margin negotiations—when it’s advantageous to open strong. A bold first offer can signal confidence, define your territory, and test the boundaries of the other side’s flexibility. But it must be used selectively. When poorly executed, it can come across as aggressive, tone-deaf, or even disrespectful.
An anchor that lacks credibility undermines your negotiating position and trustworthiness. The best anchors are defensible—they’re bold but reasonable, and they hold up under scrutiny. Dr. Karrass often stressed that “power in negotiation doesn’t come from bluffing—it comes from preparation.” Credible anchors reflect that preparation and set the stage for productive give-and-take.
Anyone can anchor, but the effectiveness of an anchor often depends on perceived power. If one party believes the other has more authority, expertise, or leverage, they’re more likely to accept the initial figure as a legitimate reference point. This is why sellers, senior executives, and dominant suppliers often succeed in anchoring negotiations. However, power is often a matter of perception—and perception can be managed through preparation and assertive framing.
When you walk into a negotiation uncertain about your alternatives or unprepared to challenge initial offers, you’re more likely to absorb an anchor without resistance. Anchors thrive in environments where one side feels they have less to lose or fewer options. Dr. Karrass taught that “you have more power than you think,” especially when you come equipped with data, alternatives, and a clear understanding of your goals. When both sides recognize each other’s strength, anchoring becomes less about control and more about strategy.
Preparation is the antidote to anchoring bias. If you haven’t done your homework, any number thrown out—even an extreme one—can feel like a legitimate starting point. That’s because, in the absence of your own anchor, theirs fills the vacuum. The best negotiators walk in with researched targets, ranges, and fallback positions that insulate them from being overly influenced by the other side’s opening move.
In some cultures, aggressive first offers are expected and respected as signs of strength. In others, they may be viewed as disrespectful or abrasive. Understanding the cultural context behind how anchors are delivered and received is crucial to maintaining credibility. Negotiators must adjust their tone, pacing, and framing to match the expectations of their counterparts—or risk having their anchor rejected outright.
Virtual negotiations, especially over email, magnify the impact of anchoring. Without tone of voice, facial expressions, or immediate feedback, a bold anchor can appear harsher and more final than intended. Recipients may be less likely to challenge it in writing, especially if they feel unsure of how to respond diplomatically. In video calls, timing and body language become even more critical—silence, tone, and posture all affect how an anchor lands.
Anchoring in digital or cross-cultural settings requires sensitivity and preparation. That might mean softening your language (“We’ve typically seen ranges around…”), providing data to support your figure, or allowing more space for discussion before numbers are introduced. As always, the key is not just in setting the anchor—but in guiding the negotiation that follows.
When faced with an unreasonable anchor, don’t try to argue it down incrementally. Instead, introduce a new range that reflects your position and invites discussion on a different basis. For example, if a supplier opens at $120,000 and you know market rates are closer to $80,000–$90,000, frame your response around those facts. A well-reasoned re-anchor resets expectations and reorients the conversation toward fairness.
Avoid directly attacking the other party’s anchor—that can trigger defensiveness and stall progress. Instead, acknowledge their position, then shift focus: “I understand where you’re coming from, but based on our research, here’s a more realistic starting point.” This keeps the tone collaborative while allowing you to take back control. Dr. Karrass emphasized that calm, prepared responses are far more powerful than reactive ones.
The best time to re-anchor is immediately after the initial offer—before the other side builds too much momentum around it. However, if that moment passes, you can still re-anchor during a proposal review, concession trade, or scope clarification. What matters is having the confidence and rationale to pivot the conversation. Anchors may be sticky, but they are not immovable.
Many negotiators make the mistake of responding too quickly—either by accepting the anchor outright or countering within its framework. Both approaches validate the initial figure and reduce your leverage. The anchor becomes the center of gravity, even if you know it’s flawed. Pausing, asking clarifying questions, or reframing are all better options than conceding too soon.
When faced with an outrageous anchor, it’s tempting to respond with frustration or sarcasm. But emotional reactions can cloud judgment and damage rapport. The better approach is to remain calm and ask: “How did you arrive at that number?” This shifts the burden of explanation back to the anchoring party and opens the door to fact-based negotiation.
Without objective criteria—industry data, comparable deals, internal benchmarks—you’re negotiating in a vacuum. That makes you more susceptible to anchoring and less persuasive when countering. Dr. Karrass consistently emphasized the value of knowing your alternatives. When you’re confident in your data and prepared with a range of acceptable outcomes, you’re far less likely to be swayed by a single bold number.
Anchoring in negotiation refers to the tactic of setting the initial offer or term in order to frame the rest of the discussion. It works because of a cognitive bias: people tend to rely too heavily on the first piece of information they receive, even if it's arbitrary. Once an anchor is placed, it subtly influences perceptions of value, fairness, and what counts as a “reasonable” counteroffer. This makes anchoring a powerful tool for shaping outcomes—especially when the other party is unprepared or uncertain.
There’s no universal rule. If you’ve done your homework and can support your position with credible data, making the first offer can allow you to anchor the discussion in your favor. However, if you’re unsure about the value or still gathering information, it may be wiser to let the other side go first and evaluate their offer before responding. As Dr. Karrass taught, timing and preparation are key—decide based on who has more knowledge, leverage, and clarity.
If the first offer feels unexpectedly aggressive, out of line with market expectations, or is delivered quickly without much explanation, it may be an anchor. Look for signs that the other party is trying to steer the negotiation from the outset—particularly if they resist discussing justification or alternatives. A strong anchor will often come with confidence and urgency, but it may not come with substance. Ask questions and evaluate the data behind the number before reacting.
Stay calm, avoid reacting emotionally, and don’t concede the frame. Instead, re-anchor by introducing your own data-backed range or by redirecting the conversation toward objective standards. Use questions to test the legitimacy of their offer and slow the pace of the negotiation. When you demonstrate that you’re prepared and thinking strategically, you remove the power of the anchor and put the focus back on creating a fair and balanced agreement.
Anchors can be invisible chains—or they can be tools. The difference lies in how well you understand the tactic and how confidently you respond. By recognizing anchoring for what it is and preparing to counter it with clarity, confidence, and data, you prevent others from defining your negotiation on their terms. Dr. Karrass’s teachings remind us that “negotiation is learned, not innate,” and managing tactics like anchoring is a skill anyone can master through practice and preparation.
More than 1.5 million people have trained with KARRASS over the last 55 years. Effective Negotiating® is designed to work for all job titles and job descriptions, for the world’s largest companies and individual businesspeople.
Effective Negotiating® is offered In-Person in a city near you, or Live-Online from our Virtual Studios to your computer. See the complete schedule here.
EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATING II® LIVE ONLINE
EFFECTIVE NEGOTIATING® LIVE ONLINE
RELATED ARTICLES
Have questions or need assistance? Reach out to our team