#Strategy : 13 Science-Backed Tactics for Winning any Negotiation…Whether it’s your Salary or your Cable Bill, a Lot of Life is Up for Negotiation. 

If you start high, the hiring manager may adjust the figure down slightly. But that’s typically a stronger position than starting low and trying to negotiate up.

“Whoever makes the first offer essentially drops an anchor on the table,” Thompson tells Business Insider. “I might say that your opening offer is ridiculous, but nevertheless, unconsciously, I’ve been anchored.”

On HBS Working Knowledge, Galinsky likens negotiating a salary to selling a house:

Take the perspective of the seller: more extreme first offers lead to higher final settlements…

High-anchor offers lead buyers to focus on a negotiated item’s positive attributes. In addition, an aggressive first offer allows you to offer concessions and still reach an agreement that’s much better than your alternatives.

In contrast, a nonaggressive first offer leaves you with two unappealing options: Make small concessions or stand by your demands.

“We always hope to do better than our reservation values,” writes negotiation expert Chad Ellis, “but it’s important to know what yours is, both to avoid accepting a deal you shouldn’t have and as a reference point for how much a current deal is worth to you.”

Having a firm grasp of your reservation value is important from a psychological perspective: If you anchor it into your mind,you’ll be less anchored by the other person’s offer.

Some went straight to business, exchanging only names and email addresses.

Others went off-topic, “schmoozing” about hometowns and hobbies.

The schmoozers reached an agreement 59% of the time, while the business-only made it 40% of the time.

So instead of saying, “Let’s resolve the salary first, and then we’ll move on to the other issues,” you resolve the components of the agreement all together — location, vacation time, or signing bonus.

“By keeping all of the issues on the table, you have the flexibility to propose trading location and bonus for a bump in salary,” Grant writes.

That’s according to recent research, which found that dealmakers who present more precise offers (like $1.01 million) in mergers and acquisitions see more favorable outcomes than those who present round-number offers (like $1 million).

Specifically, those who make precise offers are more likely to win the negotiation, to have their initial offer accepted, and to see higher announcement returns.

That’s according to a recent study co-authored by researchers at the University of California-Berkeley’s Haas School of Business and New York University. During mock negotiations around salary and benefits, some participants were told to reveal they had student loans and an ill parent and others were told it was best to stick to rational arguments.

Results showed that students in the first group, who gained their partner’s sympathy, were more likely to get what they wanted. In fact, both parties walked away with a better deal in these situations.

A study conducted by researchers at Leuphana University and Saarland University in Germany explored this in a range of negotiations, including buying and selling used appliances.

In one experiment, participants were divided into buyers and sellers and asked to rate their partner’s proposal. In some cases, they received offers (e.g. “The seller offers the refrigerator for a price of €160,” or, “The buyer offers a price of €160 for the refrigerator”). In other cases, they received requests (e.g. “The seller requests a price of €160 for the refrigerator,” or, “The buyer requests the refrigerator for a price of €160″).

Results showed that both buyers and sellers were more likely to concede when the other person focused on what they were going to gain from the negotiation (offers), in contrast to what they were going to lose (requests).

In one experiment featured in the study, students role-played face-to-face negotiations for a new business venture. Half the students were told to express either consistent anger or inconsistent emotions. Those told to express anger said things like, “You’re beginning to get on my nerves,” while those told to express inconsistent emotions also said things like, “I’m very happy we’re negotiating together.”

Results showed that students who expressed inconsistent emotions claimed greater value in the negotiations. And other experiments in which students alternated between anger and disappointment yielded similar findings.

The reason is likely because the partners of those expressing inconsistent emotions felt less control over the situation.

In one part of the study, 74 people participated in two-sided negotiations in which one party was more powerful than the other; in another part of the study, 63 people participated in three-sided talks where the levels of hierarchy varied. These talks either took place in person or in a 3D virtual simulation.

Results showed that the less powerful people performed better in the virtual settings. So you may want to consider petitioning your boss for a higher salary or a flexible schedule over email.