Few questions in negotiation research have generated more debate than this one:
Should you make the first offer in a negotiation?
Claim your FREE copy: Dealmaking
Discover how to boost your power at the bargaining table in this FREE special report, Dealmaking: Secrets of Successful Dealmaking in Business Negotiations, from Harvard Law School.
For decades, practitioners have warned against it. One of the most common pieces of negotiation advice is:
“Don’t ever make the first offer—you’ll show your cards.”
The concern is straightforward. By speaking first, you might:
- Reveal information about your valuation
- Narrow the bargaining zone prematurely
- Give away part of the zone of possible agreement (ZOPA)
And yet, a growing body of negotiation research suggests the opposite: making the first offer can provide a powerful strategic advantage through anchoring in negotiation.
So which is it?
Anchoring in Negotiation: Why First Offers Matter
The anchoring effect—first identified in behavioral decision research—shows that people rely heavily on the first number introduced in a discussion. In negotiation, the first offer often serves as that anchor.
When you make the first offer:
- You influence the perceived bargaining range.
- You shape expectations.
- You frame what feels “reasonable.”
If you have a solid understanding of the likely bargaining zone—and especially if your counterpart does not—anchoring can work strongly in your favor.
But economic advantage is only part of the story.
Making First Offers, Anxiety, and Negotiation Success
In a series of studies, researchers Ashleigh Shelby Rosette (Duke University), Shirli Kopelman (University of Michigan), and JeAnna Abbott (University of Houston) explored this tension.
They asked MBA students to negotiate a single-issue price deal. Researchers recorded:
- Who made the first offer
- The size of the offer
- The final agreement
- Participants’ emotional states
- Their satisfaction with the outcome
What did they find?
Negotiators who made the first offer:
- Achieved better economic outcomes
- Felt more anxiety
- Reported lower satisfaction with the negotiation
In other words, making the first offer improved objective results—but increased psychological discomfort.
This finding helps reconcile the long-standing debate. The economic logic and the emotional experience of negotiation do not always align.
The Tradeoff: Economic Gain vs. Psychological Comfort
The implication is nuanced.
If your primary goal is to maximize the economic outcome of your deal, research strongly suggests you should make the first offer—provided you are well prepared.
But if your priority is:
- Feeling comfortable during negotiation
- Minimizing stress and anxiety
- Preserving relational harmony
You may find making the first offer emotionally taxing.
The first-offer dilemma, then, is not just strategic. It is psychological.
When Should You Make the First Offer?
Based on negotiation research, making the first offer is generally advisable when:
- You have strong information about market value.
- You understand the ZOPA.
- You can justify your number with objective standards.
- You are prepared to defend your anchor confidently.
You may want to avoid making the first offer when:
- You have very little information.
- The market range is unclear.
- You suspect your counterpart knows far more than you do.
Preparation—not bravado—is what makes anchoring effective.
Managing First-Offer Anxiety
The researchers suggest finding a “personal antidote” to prevent anxiety from interfering with performance.
For many negotiators, that means practice.
For example:
- Role-play making the first offer in simulations.
- Rehearse stating ambitious but defensible numbers.
- Develop scripts that tie your offer to data and standards.
- Practice pausing confidently after stating your number.
Anxiety often stems from uncertainty. The more familiar the behavior becomes, the less threatening it feels.
Over time, making the first offer can shift from stressful to strategic.
So, Should You Make the First Offer?
The research suggests a balanced answer:
- Yes, if you want to maximize economic value and are well prepared.
- Be cautious, if you lack information or feel unready.
- Manage your emotions, because confidence affects outcomes.
The most effective negotiators understand both the math and the mindset of anchoring.
The first number matters—but so does how you feel delivering it.
What’s Your Experience?
Have you benefited from making the first offer? Or have you preferred letting the other side anchor first?
Share your negotiation techniques and insights.
Claim your FREE copy: Dealmaking
Discover how to boost your power at the bargaining table in this FREE special report, Dealmaking: Secrets of Successful Dealmaking in Business Negotiations, from Harvard Law School.
I think it is important to consider two issues in deciding whether to make the first offer
1) the information gap
2) your BATNA
If you know the potential value of the item to the other party (or have a good idea of the range of values) then making a first offer is viable and good alternative- if you don’t you could either be leaving ‘money of the table’ or have unreal expectations that could harm future discussion
BATNA – if you have a strong BATNA and you make the first offer and it harms your negotiations -no harm no foul- you can move to your next option
At the core of the collaborative approach to negotiating is relationship management. I am one of the proponents who believe negotiators shouldn’t make the first offer. It is very beneficial to weigh your options. From the standpoint of giving the other side the opportunity to make you an offer, very few things can go wrong. For example, if you dont like their offer, you can review it, if you like their offer, they will be grateful you didn’t decent into the arena of haggling.
In this forum the responses are very interesting. I believe the type of negotiations will greatly vary the approach. In salary negotiations, from the employers, side negotiations must be a positive interaction for both parties because the end result will be a lasting relationship. Because of this, it is my practice to make the best offer I can and not vary much. Great variation could lead your new employee to think they left room on the table no matter how high you go. On the other hand it may lead them to think you tried to low ball them which is not good for a relationship. When it comes to employment, do the best you can for the potential employee it will pay off. Make you variations in the package not the total value. Exchange base salary for retirement contributions, sign on bonus for relocation expense, etc.
Very much depends on the item being negotiated and the culture! Some cultures normally ask/offer a ridiculous price, but that sets the anchor to an assumed middle point (not the initial offer). For example in gem dealing in Mozambique, the seller is expected to make the demand initially and this will be about double the expected price. In other cultures, for example in British property and business negotiation, a fair end point offer is respected as the initial play and not deviated from much.
I see the first offer as a boundary, not so much as an anchor. As a Plaintiff’s demand or a seller’s asking price, the money will not likely go higher. It sets the stage and the action happens with the counter. If the numbers are backed by rational data or history of other situations, it should be better received by the opposing party. The more understanding of each party’s position – the better.
To me this is a trivial result that practitioners have been long aware of. You have a potential advantage if you anchor high but of of course there is a risk of being too high and kick yourself out of the game. Also in highly competitive situations anchoring high is a bad idea because you will be pushed to your bottom limit anyways so you better start low in order not to lose credibility in the negotiation process. So: whether or not it is smart to anchor high depends on the context.
In my humble opinion a first offer naturally should be made be made by the party initiating the deal as he makes the first step towards negotiations. This however is dependent on what system of negotiation you embark on. A collaborative approach will require all cards to be put on the table and this will involve value creation and the interests of both parties taken into consideration. Therefore irrespective of who makes the first offer, stress is eliminated as all things are summed up together
Besides the evidence re: anchoring, I believe making the first offer can be very productive. Many of my mediation participants are often reluctant to initiate with an offer. However, if the initial offer is framed as contingent on an exchange for something from the other side (ie. specific timing or payment, or a favorable payment plan, etc.), I believe it can be very effective, and injects a collaborative energy into the negotiations from the get-go.
I wonder how prepared where the MBA students who made the first offer and what was the real cause of their anxiety. I can assume that when we make a high but reasonable first offer, we should not feel too anxious. However, in term of happiness, we might be anchoring OURSELVES to this high initial point. As it is unlikely that the other side is going to accept our first offer, we might be inclined to be unhappy comparing our starting point (high offer) & the result we get at the conclusion of the negotiation process. What do you think?
Great post! I really like the way you have explained each and everything so well. Very well done with the article!