Anchoring: How First Numbers and First Impressions Pull Decisions

1) Anchoring mechanics: why the first number (or first impression) sticks

Anchoring is the tendency to rely too heavily on an initial value—an opening price, a first rating, a first opinion, a first résumé impression—when making later judgments. After an anchor appears, people typically make adjustments away from it, but those adjustments are often too small. The result: final decisions cluster closer to the first value than the evidence warrants.

What’s happening in your mind

• Starting-point bias: The first value becomes the default reference point, even if it’s arbitrary.
• Selective search: Once an anchor is present, you tend to look for reasons that make it feel plausible (e.g., “Maybe that salary range is normal here”).
• Insufficient adjustment: You move away from the anchor, but not far enough, especially under time pressure or uncertainty.

Where anchors show up (with practical examples)

Negotiation: first offer sets the bargaining zone

Example: You’re selling a used laptop. You planned to ask $700. A buyer messages: “I can do $450 today.” Even if you counter at $650, the conversation now revolves around $450–$650 rather than your original $700–$750 target. The first number pulled the entire range downward.

Mechanic: The first offer often becomes the “center” of the negotiation, shaping what feels reasonable.

Budgeting: last year’s spend becomes this year’s “normal”

Example: Your team spent $120,000 on software last year. This year, you start budgeting from $120,000 and tweak up or down. If last year included one-time costs, the anchor still drags the new budget toward it.

Mechanic: Historical numbers feel objective, but they can be contaminated by unusual events, legacy contracts, or prior inefficiencies.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Hiring: first impressions and early signals dominate

Example: The first candidate you interview is exceptionally strong. The next candidates feel weaker by comparison, even if they meet the role requirements. Or the reverse: an early weak candidate makes later candidates seem better than they are.

Mechanic: Early impressions become a benchmark; later evaluations become relative rather than absolute.

Performance evaluation: early ratings pull final reviews

Example: A manager informally labels an employee “solid but not standout” in Q1. In Q4, even after major wins, the final rating drifts toward “solid” because the manager’s adjustments are incremental rather than a full reset.

Mechanic: Early labels create a narrative anchor; later evidence is interpreted as exceptions or “growth,” not as a new baseline.

Quick diagnostic: is it an anchor or a real benchmark?

2) Two-anchor exercise: feel the effect in your own estimates

This short exercise is designed to make anchoring visible. Do it quickly; overthinking reduces the effect.

Step-by-step

1. Pick one estimation question (choose one):
   • How many pages is the average novel?
   • What is the average monthly rent for a 1-bedroom in your city?
   • How long does it take to onboard a new hire to productivity (weeks)?
2. Run Version A (low anchor): Read this anchor and immediately estimate.
   • Low anchor: “Consider the number 12.”
   • Now write your estimate: Estimate_A = ____
3. Reset: Wait 20–30 seconds. Do a different task (count backward from 30) to clear your working memory.
4. Run Version B (high anchor): Read this anchor and immediately estimate again.
   • High anchor: “Consider the number 120.”
   • Now write your estimate: Estimate_B = ____
5. Compare: Compute the difference: Anchor_Drift = Estimate_B - Estimate_A

What to notice

• If Estimate_B is meaningfully higher than Estimate_A, the anchor changed your sense of “reasonable,” even though the anchor had no factual connection to the question.
• The effect is often strongest when you’re uncertain, when you lack a stored reference value, or when the question is broad.

Make it more realistic (optional)

Repeat the exercise using anchors that resemble real life:

• Salary: Anchor A: “$70k” vs Anchor B: “$110k” for the same role.
• Project timeline: Anchor A: “2 weeks” vs Anchor B: “10 weeks.”
• Performance rating: Anchor A: “Meets expectations” vs Anchor B: “Exceeds expectations.”

3) Debiasing tactics: how to reduce anchoring in real decisions

You can’t prevent anchors from appearing, but you can change when and how you engage with them.

Tactic A: set an independent estimate before exposure

Use when: pricing, planning, hiring, performance reviews, vendor negotiations.

1. Before looking at any external number, write your best estimate (or rating) from first principles.
2. Write a short justification: “What facts did I use?”
3. Only then review external anchors (quotes, ranges, prior-year numbers).
4. Update your estimate explicitly: “I am changing from X to Y because of Z evidence.”

Why it works: It forces your brain to generate a reference point that is not borrowed from someone else.

Tactic B: use ranges, not point estimates

Use when: uncertain forecasts, salary expectations, project estimates.

• Replace “The project will take 6 weeks” with “It will take 5–8 weeks given current scope.”
• Replace “This candidate is a 4/5” with “They are 3.5–4.5 depending on how we weight stakeholder management.”

Why it works: Ranges reduce the gravitational pull of a single anchor and encourage you to consider variability.

Tactic C: reference objective benchmarks (and document them)

Use when: compensation, pricing, performance evaluation.

1. Choose 2–3 benchmarks that are as objective as possible (market data, internal leveling guidelines, historical conversion rates).
2. Write them down before discussing numbers with stakeholders.
3. When an anchor appears, compare it to benchmarks rather than to your feelings.

Why it works: Benchmarks shift the reference point from “first number heard” to “best available evidence.”

Tactic D: delay commitment (create a buffer between anchor and decision)

Use when: first offers, first impressions, early ratings.

• In negotiations: “Thanks—let me review and get back to you tomorrow.”
• In hiring: do not score immediately after the first 5 minutes; wait until after structured questions.
• In performance reviews: draft ratings after reviewing the full period’s evidence, not after the first anecdote.

Why it works: Time reduces automatic adjustment from the anchor and increases deliberate evaluation.

4) Work scenario lab: salary negotiation script (separating market research from the initial offer)

This lab gives you a repeatable structure to avoid being pulled by the first number while staying collaborative.

Goal

• Keep your compensation discussion anchored to market evidence and role scope, not to the employer’s first offer.
• Make your counteroffer feel like a reasoned conclusion, not a reaction.

Preparation (10–20 minutes)

1. Define the role precisely: title, level, core responsibilities, location/remote, required skills.
2. Collect benchmarks: at least two sources (e.g., reputable salary reports, peer data, internal leveling bands if available).
3. Set your independent range:
   • Target_Range = [low, high] based on benchmarks and your fit.
   • Walk_Away = ____ (minimum acceptable total compensation).
4. List value signals: 3–5 bullets linking your experience to outcomes (revenue, cost savings, risk reduction, speed, quality).

Live conversation script

Phase 1: prevent premature anchoring

You: “I’m excited about the role. Before we talk specific numbers, can we align on level, scope, and the compensation structure—base, bonus, and equity?”

If they ask for your expectation first:

You: “I’d like to base this on market data and the final scope. If it helps, I can share a range once we confirm level and responsibilities.”

Phase 2: if they give the first offer (anchor appears)

Them: “We’re thinking $X base.”

You (acknowledge + separate): “Thanks for sharing. I’m going to take a moment to compare that with the market range I’ve researched for this level and scope.”

You (re-anchor to benchmarks): “Based on [benchmark 1] and [benchmark 2], for this role and location, I’m seeing a typical range around [A–B]. Given my experience in [value signal], I’m targeting [C–D].”

Phase 3: make a specific, justified counter

You: “If we can get to $C base (or total comp of $T with equity/bonus), I’m confident we can move forward quickly.”

Optional trade: “If base is constrained, could we adjust with a sign-on bonus, earlier review cycle, or additional equity to reach the same total value?”

Phase 4: delay commitment if needed

You: “I want to be thoughtful rather than reactive. Can I review the full package details and follow up tomorrow with a clear response?”

Common pitfalls (and replacements)

5) Template: Pre-Anchor Estimate Sheet + anchor selection rubric

Pre-Anchor Estimate Sheet (copy/paste)

Decision: ________________________________   Date: ____________   Owner: ____________  Context: ______________________

1) Independent estimate (before exposure to others' numbers/opinions)

My point estimate: ____________

My range (low–high): ____________ to ____________

Confidence (0–100%): ____________

2) Evidence used (list facts, not opinions)

- _____________________________________________

- _____________________________________________

- _____________________________________________

3) What would change my estimate?

- If I learn ______________________, I will move to ____________

- If I learn ______________________, I will move to ____________

4) External anchors encountered (after my estimate)

Anchor source: __________________  Anchor value/opinion: __________________  Incentives/bias risk: __________________

Anchor source: __________________  Anchor value/opinion: __________________  Incentives/bias risk: __________________

5) Update decision (explicit adjustment)

New estimate/range: ____________ to ____________

Reason for change (tie to evidence): _______________________________________

6) Commitment delay (optional)

I will decide on: ____________   After reviewing: ___________________________

Rubric: choosing which anchors to trust (and which to discount)

Not all anchors are bad. Some are legitimate benchmarks. Use this rubric to decide whether an anchor deserves weight.

How to use: Add the scores. High totals suggest a benchmark worth using; low totals suggest you should treat it as a strategic anchor and rely more on your independent estimate and objective benchmarks.