For many years, researchers and practitioners alike have debated a central question in negotiation strategy: is it better to make the first offer, or to wait and respond to the other side? While opinions have long differed, a recent large-scale meta-study offers a clear and evidence-based answer. Drawing on a comprehensive body of prior research, the study shows that negotiators who make the first offer, provided they do so with careful preparation, generally achieve better outcomes than those who hold back.

The researchers analysed 90 existing studies comprising 374 experiments and involving more than 16,000 participants. This breadth allows for firm conclusions, as the results are not dependent on any single context or experimental design. Across this extensive dataset, a consistent pattern emerged: those who initiated negotiations with a first offer tended to secure more favourable final agreements. The findings suggest that the advantage of going first is not a matter of confidence or personality alone, but a systematic effect that appears across many types of bargaining situations.

The study, titled “The Power and Peril of First Offers in Negotiations, was conducted by Martin Schweinsberg, associate professor of organisational behaviour at ESMT Berlin, as part of an international research team led by Hannes M. Petrowsky of Leuphana University. It was published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, a leading peer-reviewed journal in management and decision-making research. The rigorous review process required for publication underscores the reliability of the findings and their relevance for both academic and practical audiences.

One reason first offers are so influential lies in their framing effect. The data spans a wide range of negotiations, including salary discussions, property transactions, procurement contracts, and private sales. Across these settings, the first number mentioned often serves as a psychological anchor, subtly shaping how all subsequent offers are perceived. In 81 per cent of the negotiations examined, higher first offers were associated with better outcomes for the party that made them. This anchoring effect helps explain why the opening move can exert such a strong pull on the entire negotiation process.

At the same time, the study emphasises that the power of first offers has limits. Excessively high or unrealistic opening demands increase the risk of negotiations breaking down or leaving the counterpart feeling unfairly treated. This is especially problematic when the relationship continues after the agreement, such as in employment or long-term service arrangements. A perceived loss can later manifest in reduced effort, lower cooperation, or declining performance, turning an apparent short-term gain into a long-term cost. The research also shows that as negotiations become more complex, involving multiple issues rather than a single price, the influence of one initial number weakens, and trust and relationship quality become more important.

Overall, the findings provide clear but nuanced guidance. Making the first offer is often advantageous, but only when it is grounded in solid preparation, realistic expectations, and an awareness of the future relationship with the other party. As Schweinsberg notes, much of negotiation success is determined before the discussion even begins. Those who set clear goals, define sensible ranges, and plan their opening move deliberately are far more likely to achieve outcomes that prove beneficial over the long term.

More information: Hannes M. Petrowsky et al, The power and peril of first offers in negotiations: a conceptual, meta-analytic, and experimental synthesis, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. DOI: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2025.104448

Journal information: Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes Provided by ESMT Berlin