Group Decision and Negotiation

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 43–62 | Cite as

Deep Pockets and Poor Results: The Effect of Wealth Cues on First Offers in Negotiation

  • Yossi MaaraviEmail author
  • Boaz Hameiri


In this article, we examined the effect of external cues on first offers in negotiation. Specifically, we present the results of three experiments and an internal meta-analysis through which we investigated the relations between buyers’ external characteristics, which serve as cues of economic wealth, including their clothes, cars and country of origin, and sellers’ first offers in negotiation. We found that when external cues indicated wealth, counteroffers were less beneficial to those communicating the cues, resulting in higher first offers by their counterparts. We suggest, and provide empirical evidence, that these effects will emerge as long as the wealth signal is salient and perceived as an indication for the counterpart’s ‘deep pockets’, or ability to pay.


First offers Anchoring Negotiation Ability to pay Deep pockets 



Yossi Maaravi is grateful to Leumi for supporting this research through the “Leumi Innovation Project” grant. Boaz Hameiri is grateful to the Azrieli Foundation for the award of an Azrieli Fellowship.


  1. Ambady N, Skowronski JJ (eds) (2008) First impressions. Guilford Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  2. Babcock L, Laschever S (2009) Women don’t ask: negotiation and the gender divide. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Bahník S, Englich B, Strack F (2017) Anchoring effect. In: Pohl RF (ed) Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in thinking, judgment and memory, 2nd edn. Routledge, London, pp 223–241Google Scholar
  4. Baron J (2000) Thinking and deciding. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Bazerman MH (2001) Smart money decisions: why you do what you do with money (and how to change it for the better). Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Bazerman MH, Neale MA (1992) Negotiating rationally. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  7. Belle N, Cantarelli P, Belardinelli P (2017) Cognitive biases in performance appraisal: experimental evidence on anchoring and halo effects with public sector managers and employees. Rev Public Pers Adm 37:275–294. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bickman L (1974) The social power of a uniform. J Appl Soc Psychol 4:47–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buelens M, Van Poucke D (2004) Determinants of a negotiator’s initial opening offer. J Bus Psychol 19:23–35. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chapman GB, Johnson EJ (1999) Anchoring, activation, and the construction of values. Organ Behav Hum Decis 79:115–153. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chin A, Peterson MA (1985) Deep pockets, empty pockets: who wins in Cook County jury trials. Rand Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar
  12. Cialdini RB (2009) Influence: science and practice, 5th edn. Pearson Education, BostonGoogle Scholar
  13. Doob AN, Gross AE (1968) Status of frustrator as an inhibitor of horn-honking responses. J Soc Psychol 76:213–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Englich B, Mussweiler T (2001) Sentencing under uncertainty: anchoring effects in the courtroom. J Appl Soc Psychol 31:1535–1551. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans JSB (2008) Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annu Rev Psychol 59:255–278. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang AG (2009) Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 41:1149–1160. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galinsky AD, Mussweiler T (2001) First offers as anchors: the role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. J Personal Soc Psychol 81:657–669. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galinsky AD, Schaerer M, Magee JC (2017) The four horsemen of power at the bargaining table. J Bus Ind Mark 32:606–611. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ganzach Y (2000) Judging risk and return of financial assets. Organ Behav Hum Dec 83:353–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gardiner PC, Edwards W (1975) Public values: multiattribute-utility measurement for social decision-making. In: Kaplan MF, Schwarz S (eds) Human judgement and decision processes. Academic Press, New York, pp 1–37Google Scholar
  21. Gillath O, Bahns AJ, Ge F, Crandall CS (2012) Shoes as a source of first impressions. J Res Personal 46:423–430. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goh JX, Hall JA, Rosenthal R (2016) Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: some arguments on why and a primer on how. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 10:535–549. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. John OP, Robins RW (1994) Accuracy and bias in self-perception: individual differences in self-enhancement and the role of narcissism. J Personal Soc Psychol 66:206–219. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson M (1927) More maxims of Mark. Privately Printed, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  25. Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697–720. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kahneman D (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. Kraus MW, Keltner D (2009) Signs of socioeconomic status: a thin-slicing approach. Psychol Sci 20:99–106. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kraus MW, Mendes WB (2014) Sartorial symbols of social class elicit class-consistent behavioral and physiological responses: a dyadic approach. J Exp Psychol Gen 143:2330–2340. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kraus MW, Stephens NM (2012) A road map for an emerging psychology of social class. Soc Personal Psychol Compass 6:642–656. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kraus MW, Park JW, Tan JJ (2017) Signs of social class: The experience of economic inequality in everyday life. Perspect Psychol Sci 12:422–435. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kristensen H, Gärling T (1997) Determinants of buyers’ aspiration and reservation price. J Econ Psychol 18:487–503. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lefkowitz M, Blake RR, Mouton JS (1955) Status factors in pedestrian violation of traffic signals. J Abnorm Soc Psychol 51:704–706. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Loschelder DD, Trötschel R, Swaab RI, Friese M, Galinsky AD (2016) The information-anchoring model of first offers: when moving first helps versus hurts negotiators. J Appl Psychol 101:995–1012. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Maaravi Y, Levy A (2017) When your anchor sinks your boat: information asymmetry in distributive negotiations and the disadvantage of making the first offer. Judgm Decis Mak 12:420–429Google Scholar
  35. Maaravi Y, Ganzach Y, Pazy A (2011a) Negotiation as a form of persuasion: arguments in first offers. J Personal Soc Psychol 101:245–255. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maaravi Y, Pazy A, Ganzach Y (2011b) Pay as much as you can afford: Counterpart’s ability to pay and first offers in negotiation. Judgm Decis Mak 6:275–282Google Scholar
  37. Malhotra D, Bazerman MH (2007) Negotiating genius. Bantam, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Malhotra D, Bazerman MH (2008) Psychological influence in negotiation: an introduction long overdue. J Manag 34:509–531. Google Scholar
  39. Nisbett RE, Wilson TD (1977) The halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgments. J Personal Soc Psychol 35:250–256. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Northcraft GB, Neale MA (1987) Experts, amateurs, and real estate: an anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organ Behav Hum Dec 39:84–97. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oakes JM, Rossi PH (2003) The measurement of SES in health research: current practice and steps toward a new approach. Soc Sci Med 56:769–784. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Oesch JM, Galinsky AD (2003) First offers in negotiations: Determinants and effects. Paper presented at the International Association of Conflict Management Meetings (IACM) 16th annual conference, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  43. Pinkley RL, Neale MA, Bennett RJ (1994) The impact of alternatives to settlement in dyadic negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Dec 57:97–116. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pruitt DG, Carnevale PJ (1993) Negotiation in social conflict. Open University Press, BuckinghamGoogle Scholar
  45. Raiffa H, Richardson J, Metcalfe D (2002) Negotiation analysis: the science and art of collaborative decision making. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Ritov I (1996) Anchoring in simulated competitive market negotiation. Organ Behav Hum Dec 67:16–25. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shalvi S, Moran S, Ritov I (2010) Overcoming initial anchors: the effect of negotiators’ dispositional control beliefs. Negot Confl Manag R 3:232–248. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sinaceur M, Maddux WW, Vasiljevic D, Nückel RP, Galinsky AD (2013) Good things come to those who wait: late first offers facilitate creative agreements in negotiation. Personal Soc Psychol Bull 39:814–825. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Thompson L (2005) The mind and heart of the negotiator, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  50. Todorov A (2017) Face value: the irresistible influence of first impressions. Princeton University Press, PrincetonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Todorov A, Mandisodza AN, Goren A, Hall CC (2005) Inferences of competence from faces predict lection outcomes. Science 308:1623–1626. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Tversky A, Kahneman D (1974) Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124–1131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tversky A, Sattath S, Slovic P (1988) Contingent weighting in judgment and choice. Psychol Rev 95:371–384. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. White SB, Neale MA (1991) Reservation prices, resistance points, and BATNAs: determining the parameters of acceptable negotiated outcomes. Negot J 7:379–388. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Adelson School of Entrepreneurship, Interdisciplinary Center (IDC)HerzliyaIsrael
  2. 2.Annenberg School for CommunicationUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations