This is an official ODERSA website. Here’s how you know
The official domain

The address of this site ends in odersa.org. Every service the association runs sits on a subdomain of odersa.org and nowhere else. If the address in your browser’s address bar does not end in odersa.org, this site is not ours.

Free, and no account

Everything is open straight away. No sign-up, no account, no password, no subscription, no advertising. Nothing is held back for those who pay, because there is nothing to pay for.

No data collected

This site does not follow you: no tracker, no tracking cookie, no measurement tool built into these pages, and nothing measured on your device. Our host counts requests in aggregate, as any server that answers does: a total, never a profile. You do not have to take our word for it: open your browser’s developer tools, go to the Network tab, and reload the page. You will see the full list of what the site asks for. Everything comes from odersa.org, nothing goes anywhere else.

Free to reuse

The content is published under the CC BY 4.0 licence. You may copy it, translate it, print it and pass it on, for your classes as much as for the people around you, on one condition only: credit ODERSA.

FrançaisEnglishEspañolالعربيةहिन्दीবাংলা中文

← Back to the blog

Published on 2026-07-25

Why does the first number you hear change everything that follows?


A price tag, a random spin of a wheel, a first offer: research shows any number can steer your judgement, even when you know it's meaningless.

Picture a flea market table. A vase sits with a handwritten tag: 300. You have no idea what it's worth, but your brain now has a number to work with, and every offer you make from here on will orbit around it. Drop it to 120 and you'll feel like you won. Nobody told you 120 was fair. The 300 did all the talking.

That small scene has a name and a proper scientific pedigree. It's called anchoring, and one of its cleanest demonstrations comes from a study most of us have never heard of but that shaped decades of research into how we judge and decide.

A wheel that was never fair

In the early 1970s, the psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman ran a simple experiment. They spun a wheel of fortune in front of participants, a wheel rigged to always land on either 10 or 65, though nobody told the participants that. Right after the spin, people were asked a completely unrelated question: what percentage of countries in the United Nations were African? First, they had to say whether the true answer was higher or lower than the number the wheel had shown. Then they gave their own estimate.

The wheel's number had nothing to do with African nations or the UN. Everyone in the room knew that. And yet, the group who saw 10 on the wheel gave a median guess of 25 percent, while the group who saw 65 guessed 45 percent on average. Published in Science in 1974, the finding was blunt: a number picked at random by a rigged wheel still dragged people's estimates toward it. Tversky and Kahneman called the mechanism anchoring and adjustment. We land on a starting figure, then nudge away from it, but the nudge is almost always too small.

The same trick, played on professionals

You might assume that experts are immune, that years of experience build a kind of armour against a stray number. Real estate offers a good test case, because agents price homes for a living. Economists Grace Bucchianeri and Julia Minson studied more than 14,000 home sales, controlling for the size, location and condition of each property, to isolate what a home's initial asking price alone did to its eventual sale price. Listing a home 10 to 20 percent above its realistic market value still nudged the final sale price up, by roughly one hundred to one hundred and fifty dollars for the average home in their sample. Not a fortune, but a real, measurable pull, and one that ran counter to what agents themselves say they believe about pricing.

An anchor doesn't need to be accurate to work. It only needs to arrive first.

Why the adjustment always falls short

Here's the part that makes anchoring so stubborn: we rarely ignore the first number, and we rarely accept it outright either. We adjust from it, which feels like independent thinking. The problem is that adjusting takes mental effort, and effort runs out before bias does. So we stop moving away from the anchor a little too early, and the anchor keeps a grip on the final answer even after we've consciously rejected it as irrelevant. The wheel of fortune study made this obvious: participants knew the wheel was random. They said so. Their estimates moved anyway.

Sellers, negotiators and marketers have absorbed this lesson whether or not they've read the original paper. A 'was 200, now 89' sticker doesn't need the 200 to be a real former price for it to work on you: it just needs to land in your head a fraction of a second before the 89 does. A recruiter who names a modest starting salary first sets the ceiling for the whole negotiation, often before either side has said much else.

Giving yourself a second anchor

None of this means your judgement is broken. It means it runs on a shortcut that evolved for a world with far less deliberate number-throwing in it than ours. The fix isn't to distrust every figure you see, which would be exhausting and unnecessary. It's to notice the moment a number arrives before you've formed your own view, and to deliberately fetch a second, independent one before deciding anything.

The vase on the flea market table might genuinely be worth 120. It might be worth 40. The tag saying 300 tells you nothing reliable about either, and that's exactly what makes it such an effective opening move. Once you've spotted the trick, you don't stop seeing numbers. You just stop letting the first one decide for you.

Topics: cognitive bias psychology numbers

Sources

Keyboard shortcuts

?Open this help
EscClose the panel or this help
1-3Pick an answer during the quiz
EnterNext case, once you've read the answer
TabMove from link to link: the whole site works by keyboard