Negotiators often open with assertive offers to anchor discussions in their favor, yet this approach risks offending potential partners and foreclosing negotiations. Across four experiments, we demonstrate that hedged language softens proposals, allowing negotiators to remain assertive while reducing the risk of offending deal partners and preventing their early exit. Experiment 1 established this effect in a transactional sale context without post-deal interaction. Experiment 2 generalized the effect to a setting in which parties have an ongoing relationship and ruled out a confounding effect of message length. Experiment 3 revealed hedging signals flexibility, but this perception alone does not fully explain the effect. Experiment 4 found that hedged offers did not invite more assertive counteroffers and, after accounting for its reduced effect on impasses, led to better overall performance than directly stated ones. Hedging allows negotiators to introduce self-favorable starting points while minimizing offense and missed deal opportunities.
AmesD. R.MasonM. F. (2015). Tandem anchoring: Informational and politeness effects of range offers in social exchange. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(2), 254–274. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000016
BowlesH. R.BabcockL.LaiL. (2007). Social incentives for gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations: Sometimes it does hurt to ask. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.09.001
5.
BrettJ. M.OlekalnsM.FriedmanR.GoatesN.AndersonC.LiscoC. C. (2007). Sticks and stones: Language, face, and online dispute resolution. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2007.24161853
6.
BrownB. R. (1968). The effects of need to maintain face on interpersonal bargaining. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4(1), 107–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(68)90053-X
7.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge University Press.
8.
ChannellJ. (1994). Vague language. Oxford University Press.
GalinskyA. D.KuG.MussweilerT. (2009). To start low or to start high? The case of auctions versus negotiations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(6), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01667.x
14.
GalinskyA. D.MussweilerT. (2001). First offers as anchors: The role of perspective-taking and negotiator focus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 657–669. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.4.657
GriceH. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In ColeP.MorganJ. L. (Eds.), Speech acts, syntax and semantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Brill. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003.
17.
HartE.SchweitzerM. E. (2019). Relational concerns and the economic value of negotiated agreements. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3437461
18.
HoltgravesT. (1986). Language structure in social interaction: Perceptions of direct and indirect speech acts and interactants who use them. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(2), 305–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.2.305
19.
HoltgravesT. (1997). Styles of language use: Individual and cultural variability in conversational indirectness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 624–637. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.624
20.
HylandK. (1996). Writing without conviction? Hedging in science research articles. Applied Linguistics, 17(4), 433–454. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.433
21.
JangD.ElfenbeinH. A.BottomW. P. (2018). More than a phase: Form and features of a general theory of negotiation. Academy of Management Annals, 12(1), 318–356. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2016.0053
22.
JeongM.MinsonJ.YeomansM.GinoF. (2019). Communicating with warmth in distributive negotiations is surprisingly counterproductive. Management Science, 65(12), 5813–5837. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3199
23.
KrayL. J.RebJ.GalinskyA. D.ThompsonL. (2004). Stereotype reactance at the bargaining table: The effect of stereotype activation and power on claiming and creating value. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167203261884
24.
KrayL. J.ThompsonL.GalinskyA. (2001). Battle of the sexes: Gender stereotype confirmation and reactance in negotiations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 942–958. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.942
25.
LakoffR. T. (1975). Language and woman’s place. Harper and Row.
26.
LaxD. A.SebeniusJ. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining for cooperation and competitive gain. Free Press.
27.
LeeA. J.AmesD. R. (2017). “I can’t pay more” versus “it’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 141, 16–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2017.05.002
28.
LeeA. J.LoschelderD. D.SchweinsbergM.MasonM. F.GalinskyA. D. (2018). Too precise to pursue: How precise first offers create barriers-to-entry in negotiations and markets. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 148, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.03.001
29.
LeeA. J.MasonM. F.MalcombC. S. (2021). Beyond cheap talk accounts: A theory of politeness in negotiations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 41, Article 100154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2021.100154
30.
LeibM.KöbisN. C.FranckeM.ShalviS.RoskesM. (2021). Precision in a seller’s market: Round asking prices lead to higher counteroffers and selling prices. Management Science, 67(2), 1048–1055. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2019.3570
31.
LippW. E.SmolinskiR.KestingP. (2022). Toward a process model of first offers and anchoring in negotiations. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research, SSRN Electronic Journal. https://ssrn.com/abstract=4163493
32.
LoschelderD. D.FrieseM.SchaererM.GalinskyA. D. (2016). The too-much-precision effect: When and why precise anchors backfire with experts. Psychological Science, 27(12), 1573–1587. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616666074
33.
LoschelderD. D.SwaabR. I.TrötschelR.GalinskyA. D. (2014). The first-mover disadvantage: The folly of revealing compatible preferences. Psychological Science, 25(4), 954–962. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613520168
34.
LoschelderD. D.TrötschelR.SwaabR. I.FrieseM.GalinskyA. D. (2016). The information-anchoring model of first offers: When moving first helps versus hurts negotiators. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(7), 995–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000096
35.
MaA.PoncedeLeonR.RosetteA. S. (2023). Asking for less (but receiving more): Women avoid impasses and outperform men when negotiators have weak alternatives. Journal of Applied Psychology. 109(7), 1145–1158. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001138
36.
MaaraviY.GanzachY.PazyA. (2011). Negotiation as a form of persuasion: Arguments in first offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(2), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023331
37.
MajerJ. M.TrötschelR.GalinskyA. D.LoschelderD. D. (2020). Open to offers, but resisting requests: How the framing of anchors affects motivation and negotiated outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(3), 582–599. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000210
38.
MasonM. F.LeeA. J.WileyE. A.AmesD. R. (2013). Precise offers are potent anchors: Conciliatory counteroffers and attributions of knowledge in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49(4), 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.012
39.
NorthcraftG. B.NealeM. A. (1987). Experts, amateurs, and real estate: An anchoring-and-adjustment perspective on property pricing decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 84–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90046-x
40.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
SchweinsbergM.KuG.WangC. S.PillutlaM. M. (2012). Starting high and ending with nothing: The role of anchors and power in negotiations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 226–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.005
43.
SchweinsbergM.ThauS.PillutlaM. M. (2022). Negotiation impasses: Types, causes, and resolutions. Journal of Management, 48(1), 49–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063211021657
44.
TjosvoldD. (1974). Threat as a low-power person's strategy in bargaining: Social face and tangible outcomes. International Journal of Group Tensions, 4, 494–510.
45.
TjosvoldD.HustonT. L. (1978). Social face and resistance to compromise in bargaining. The Journal of Social Psychology, 104(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1978.9924038
46.
TrötschelR.LoschelderD. D.HöhneB. P.MajerJ. M. (2015). Procedural frames in negotiations: How offering my resources versus requesting yours impacts perception, behavior, and outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(3), 417–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000009
47.
WhiteJ. B.TynanR.GalinskyA. D.ThompsonL. (2004). Face threat sensitivity in negotiation: Roadblock to agreement and joint gain. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 94(2), 102–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2004.03.005
48.
WoodL. A.KrogerR. O. (1991). Politeness and forms of address. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 10(3), 145–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X91103001
49.
YeomansM.SchweitzerM. E.BrooksA. W. (2022). The conversational circumplex: Identifying, prioritizing, and pursuing informational and relational motives in conversation. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.10.001
50.
YipJ. A.SchweinsbergM. (2017). Infuriating impasses: Angry expressions increase exiting behavior in negotiations. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 706–714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616683021
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
