
Why are we anchored often? - remotists
https://models.substack.com/p/why-are-we-anchored-often
======
motohagiography
The advice to starting a negotiation with a favourable number as a conceptual
anchor makes the mistake that a number should be at the beginning of a
negotiation at all. The whole point of a negotiation is not to haggle down to
a price, but to discover a "true" price based on seeking out principles. The
point of negotiation isn't to simply raise the number like in the haggle, it's
to influence their number to be the effect of your principles, so that the
result is everyone feels they've got a good deal.

With practice, you can de-anchor discussions simply by re-framing their
anchors using new principles.

e.g. Anchor: "Given your current salary is probably around $50k, we think
you're way underpaid and we will offer you $52,500, which is a %5 raise just
for switching jobs! You can thank me for getting you this incredible deal by
signing right now."

Re-frame: "I really appreciate your initial effort on this. We can't disclose
my current salary here because my employer treats it as competitive
information and I'm still a member of this team so I can't really comment on
that. Let's move the numbers discussion out a bit, and get a sense of the
value I can provide in the role. However, looking at the glassdoor and city
cost of living salary data for your company, the range you suggested is just
below the average salary for other people in the role. I can solve one of your
major problems with my unique experience out of the gate, which would take at
least a quarter to six months in learning curve for your current team."

This simple re-framing is, destabilize the premise (their guess of your
salary), add 2 new objective principles of a) competitive information, and b)
glassdoor/city data source, then provide them with relief from the instability
stress you created using a soft sweetener (offer of hidden value) without even
coming back with a number. This is a simplified case, but you get the idea. So
yes, anchoring, but now that you see the reframing to your principles (a new
anchor), it's much less of an obstacle.

~~~
ThePadawan
Anecdotally, I was recently asked "What was your last salary?" in the first
call from a potential employer. When I told them I was only willing to discuss
my potential future compensation, and not my current one, they immediately
declined to interview me further.

A bullet dodged without much effort.

~~~
nextweek2
>A bullet dodged without much effort. What is interesting is that they
probably thought the same thing. They clearly wanted someone that would
capitulate to things that were asked of them.

~~~
ThePadawan
I already emotionally distanced myself from that company completely, but as
far as I remember, their representative was "the hiring manager for
Engineering", but very far from the Engineering department and very close to
HR.

I honestly assume they simply selected for (as you said) pushovers or
potentially liars.

------
throwaway_pdp09
Seems there may be more to it than the article says.

"People are irrational. Example: You wouldn’t buy a new dress, or suit, that
costs $100 (‘that’s far too much to spend!’) but you would buy one that was
$300, but is now ‘reduced’ to $150 (‘but just look at how far down it’s
come!’) Sound familiar? You’re not alone, it’s fairly well-known that humans
are irrational (at least by those in advertising- some products in
supermarkets are never meant to be bought- they’re just there to get you to
buy other products more), but are other animals just as irrational?

Hummingbirds, starlings, and even bees have been shown to be irrational. But
what about organisms even smaller than bees? A recent study1 found that even
slime moulds (brain-less creatures, which live in damp places like mouldy
leaves and logs) can be irrational."

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-
science/think-y...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/not-bad-
science/think-you-re-sometimes-irrational-you-re-not-the-only-one-8211-slime-
moulds-are-irrational-too/)

This really implies something fundamental but I can't guess what.

~~~
karmakaze
I think a human being irrational isn't the same as a slime mould. The latter
doesn't have the ability to be rational in the first place, it's merely doing
what it does.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Allow me to turn that into the entirely equivalent "The latter doesn't have
the ability to be irrational in the first place", so what's happening in your
view?

------
copperx
That's why it's recommended to look into the distance when you enter a Costco,
until you pass the electronics section.

------
contravariant
That ended way more quickly than I thought it would.

~~~
goda90
Maybe you're anchored by long articles?

------
code_scrapping
If I see that the link is coming from substack, I'm actually discouraged to
click (in fear of imminent "pay for more")

------
totetsu
It's lIke the framing effect.

~~~
drewcoo
I would have called it a subset of psychological priming, but yes, you've got
it.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_(psychology)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priming_\(psychology\))

------
phailhaus
Sounds like overfitting.

------
sokoloff
> think of you walking into a sports store and the first thing you spot is a
> pair of track pants worth $500. Now your brain is anchored on that price for
> a pair of track pants, so when you see another track pant this time with a
> price tag of $300 you will perceive it as cheap.

No, I will not. $25 for track pants I would perceive as cheap. There is no way
in hell, no matter what overpriced items you show me first, that I will
perceive $300 for track pants as "cheap".

~~~
kristianp
You've previously been anchored to a price around $25. It's a bad example, but
this is a real effect, check out the research, e.g.
[https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/27/anchoring-
effect/](https://youarenotsosmart.com/2010/07/27/anchoring-effect/)

~~~
sokoloff
Yes, I’ve been anchored by dozens of sellers selling reasonably priced track
pants for at/under $50. There’s no way that anchoring will work for 10x the
reasonable/typical price.

If I go into a Toyota dealer, they can’t actually anchor my reference price of
a Toyota sedan to $250K by putting a window sticker saying that on a Camry.

~~~
perl4ever
They can try:

"A Toyota dealer in Baltimore is offering a brand new 2020 Supra Launch
Edition for a nice, round $100,000 – an eye-watering markup of $42k over
list."

[https://www.carscoops.com/2019/07/would-you-
pay-100k-for-a-2...](https://www.carscoops.com/2019/07/would-you-
pay-100k-for-a-2020-supra-launch-edition-baltimore-dealer-thinks-so/)

