For the past two decades, negotiation research has established a first-mover advantage based on the anchoring and adjustment heuristic. Negotiation scholars have argued that first offers serve as anchors that affect both counteroffers and settlement prices. Consequently, management education—including negotiation articles, books, courses, and seminars—often recommends that negotiators move first to “anchor” their counterparts. Nonetheless, a growing body of recent research contradicts this general advice and points to a second-mover advantage in specific cases. Interestingly, this contradiction was termed the “practitioner-researcher paradox,” as practitioners and negotiation experts appeared to understand the benefits of moving second in negotiations, which scholars—up until recently—generally have overlooked. The current article offers a solution to this paradox by proposing three key factors that might explain the conditions and circumstances of first- versus second-mover advantage in negotiations. These three factors are central in negotiation research and practice: information, power, and strategy. Given the centrality of first offers in negotiations, the solution to this paradox is crucial for negotiation scholars, businesspeople, managers, and anyone else who finds themselves in a negotiation.

中文翻译：

---

投标还是不投标？就是那个问题！谈判中的先发优势与后发优势

在过去的二十年里，谈判研究已经建立了基于锚定和调整启发式的先发优势。谈判学者认为，首次报价是影响还价和结算价格的锚定因素。因此，管理教育（包括谈判文章、书籍、课程和研讨会）通常建议谈判者首先“锚定”对方。尽管如此，最近越来越多的研究与这一一般性建议相矛盾，并指出在特定情况下具有后发优势。有趣的是，这种矛盾被称为“实践者-研究者悖论”，因为从业者和谈判专家似乎都理解在谈判中退居第二的好处，而直到最近学者们普遍忽视了这一点。本文通过提出三个关键因素来解决这一悖论，这些因素可以解释谈判中先发优势与后发优势的条件和情况。这三个因素是谈判研究和实践的核心：信息、权力和策略。鉴于首次报价在谈判中的核心地位，解决这一悖论对于谈判学者、商人、管理者和任何其他参与谈判的人来说至关重要。