The Psychological Weight of the Word “Fair”

The word “fair” holds significant psychological and emotional weight, particularly in cultures where fairness is a core value. From childhood, many are conditioned to understand fairness as an essential social principle, influencing how they perceive justice, equity, and balance in interactions. This conditioning shapes people’s responses to fairness in adulthood, especially in high-stakes situations like negotiations.

In English-speaking cultures, the concept of fairness is intertwined with moral and ethical conduct. A “fair” offer, decision, or process is seen as balanced and just, making it harder to reject without appearing unreasonable. In negotiations, labelling a position as “fair” can exploit this perception to nudge the other party toward agreement, while labelling something “unfair” can trigger a defensive response and force reevaluation .

Using “Fair” and “Unfair” as a Negotiation Tool

Example 1: Labelling a Proposal as Fair

Consider this scenario: A negotiator says, “This is a fair offer based on the industry standard and the benefits we’ve outlined.” By framing the offer as “fair,” the negotiator encourages the other party to agree, leveraging the instinctive human desire to maintain a fair reputation. The tactic pressures the counterpart to either accept the offer or risk appearing unreasonable or unfair themselves.

Example 2: Labelling an Offer as Unfair

On the flip side, labelling an offer as “unfair” can compel the other party to revise their stance. For instance, “Your proposal feels unfair considering the risks on our side” creates immediate pressure for the other party to reconsider and make adjustments to avoid appearing exploitative. This technique can create a psychological discomfort with being perceived as unjust, encouraging concessions .

Example 3: Applying Fairness to Concessions

Additionally, labelling concessions as fair can signal goodwill and balance. For example, a negotiator could state, “We believe we’ve made a fair concession by extending the payment terms.” This frames the concession as a generous move, prompting the other party to reciprocate or close the deal more favourably.

Cultural and Linguistic Limitations of “Fair”

The effectiveness of invoking fairness, however, is not universal. In cross-cultural negotiations, the word “fair” may not carry the same weight it does in English-speaking contexts. Non-native English speakers may not attach the same emotional resonance to the word, which can diminish its power in negotiation.

For example, while the word “fair” resonates strongly with native English speakers, its Italian counterpart, “giusto,” might not evoke the same depth of emotion. Even if an Italian negotiator is fluent in English, the term may not carry the same emotional connotation, making the fairness tactic less impactful  . In such cases, relying on more objective measures of fairness (such as industry standards or market data) may be more effective than merely using the word itself.

When “Fair” Backfires: Overuse and Extremes

Overusing the fairness label or applying it to extreme positions can backfire. For instance, labelling an ambitious or one-sided offer as “fair” can undermine your credibility and damage trust. This can lead the other party to see you as manipulative or insincere, potentially derailing the negotiation.

For example, a seller might say, “We believe this is a fair price,” even when the offer is far above market value. In this case, the buyer is likely to see the tactic as disingenuous and may disengage or push back harder, damaging the rapport between the parties.

To avoid this, it’s essential to ensure that your fairness claims are aligned with reasonable and balanced positions.

Practicing Fairness: The Strategic Use of Labelling

Given the potential pitfalls and advantages of using fairness in negotiation, it’s essential to practice the tactic carefully. Consider these approaches:

• Label the First Position as Fair: Starting a negotiation by labelling your initial offer as fair sets the tone for collaboration. It positions you as a reasonable negotiator from the outset.
• Label the Last Position as Fair: Closing a negotiation with a fairness label encourages the other party to agree on the final terms. By framing the last offer as fair, you help the other party feel comfortable finalising the deal.
• Avoid Extreme Positions: Labelling extreme or one-sided positions as fair can backfire. Instead, focus on balanced proposals that both sides can reasonably agree to.

Understanding the Power of Fairness in Negotiation

The concept of fairness is a powerful negotiation tool, but it must be used thoughtfully. When applied correctly, fairness can foster trust, encourage cooperation, and lead to more favourable outcomes.

However, its effectiveness can vary depending on cultural and linguistic context, and overusing or misapplying the fairness label can undermine credibility.

Complementary Tactics to Use with Fairness

To maximise the effectiveness of the fairness tactic, it can be combined with other negotiation techniques:

1. Anchoring: Anchoring refers to the practice of establishing a reference point (anchor) for the negotiation. By anchoring with a “fair” offer, you create a mental starting point that influences subsequent offers. For example, “Our initial offer is $50,000, which we believe is a fair starting point based on current market rates.” This sets a standard that makes any counteroffer seem more reasonable or balanced.
2. Mirroring: Mirroring, a tactic popularised by Chris Voss, involves subtly mimicking the other party’s language or tone to build rapport. In conjunction with fairness, mirroring can reinforce the sense of mutual respect and shared objectives. For instance, if the other party expresses a concern about equity, you can respond by mirroring their concerns and labelling your offer as “fair for both parties.”
3. Objective Standards: Invoking objective standards, such as industry benchmarks, legal requirements, or precedent, can reinforce the fairness of your offer. For example, “This price is aligned with the industry average, which we believe is a fair reflection of the market.” By appealing to impartial data, you bolster your claim of fairness and avoid the subjectivity that can make fairness claims feel manipulative .
4. BATNA (Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement): Using your BATNA in conjunction with fairness can also enhance the tactic’s impact. For instance, if you state, “This is a fair offer, especially compared to the alternatives we have on the table,” it adds weight to your position and emphasises the balanced nature of your offer while subtly referencing your negotiation leverage.
5. Framing and Reframing: Framing your position in terms of fairness and reframing the other party’s position as potentially unfair can create a psychological advantage. For example, “We want to ensure both parties walk away feeling this was a fair deal,” followed by, “However, your current offer might feel unfair to us given the circumstances,” reframes the discussion and encourages more equitable counteroffers.