In a market economy environment, bargaining should be a win-win psychological game - buyers obtain price discounts through skills, and sellers promote transactions through concessions. However, Xiao Zhao's experience shows an interesting psychological paradox: he successfully mentioned the price of the commodity from 200 yuan to 150 yuan, but did not experience the expected satisfaction, but instead fell into self-doubt and uneasiness. This superficially contradictory psychological reaction reveals the complex cognitive mechanisms, emotional dynamics and self-evaluation systems in human decision-making process, which are far from being explained by a simple "taking advantage" psychology.
1. Anchor effect and reference point dependence: distorted value perception
The Anchoring Effect in behavioral economics provides the first perspective for us to understand Xiao Zhao's psychology.
Psychological weight of initial price: The merchant’s 200 yuan quotation became the initial anchor in Xiao Zhao’s heart, and this number invisibly shapes his cognitive framework for the value of goods. Even if the final payment price is reduced, the original anchor still subconsciously influences his value judgment. The Prospect Theory of Nobel Prize winners Kahneman and Tworsky points out that people do not evaluate the results absolutely, but rather evaluate gains and losses relative to a reference point. For Xiao Zhao, 200 yuan became a natural reference point, which made the joy brought by the transaction price of 150 yuan diluted by the idea that "it may have been lower".
The torture of counterfactual thinking: The human brain has the ability to perform counterfactual thinking—imagine alternative scenarios that “cannot happen”. The merchant's too readily agreed triggered a series of counterfactual reasoning: "What if I bid 120 yuan?" "I might even accept 100 yuan?" This exploration of possibility is a manifestation of human wisdom, but after making decisions, it becomes a source of self-torture.
2. Expected violations and trust doubts: Interpretation of signal theory in transactions
From the perspective of signaling theory, merchants' quick consent sends a series of complex signals, disrupting the psychological balance of transactions.
Psychological expectations of the bargaining process: The normal bargaining process should contain certain resistance and tug-of-war, and this interactive process itself has important psychological functions. On the one hand, it provides value verification for the buyer ("If the merchant is unwilling to lower the price, it means my bid may be too low"), and on the other hand, it provides proof of rationality for the final price ("The price obtained after difficult negotiations should be fair"). The merchant agreed extremely readily, breaking this expectation and causing psychological dissonance.
Anxiety of information asymmetry: The merchant's quick consent may be interpreted as a signal of hidden information—"the actual value of the commodity is much lower than 150 yuan" or "I'm a bad negotiator." Information economics tells us that there is natural information asymmetry in market transactions, and price negotiations are an important mechanism to reduce this asymmetry. Rapid transactions have intensified this sense of asymmetry and triggered doubts about product quality and its own judgment.
The paradox of trust and verification: Interestingly, a completely compliant merchant actually damages the sense of trust. Moderate resistance and hesitation are often seen as signals of honesty because it indicates that merchants are maintaining the value of goods and their own interests. Too easy concessions trigger distrust, as if you encounter suspicious goods or trap-like transactions that are eager to take off.
3. Self-efficacy and decision-making satisfaction: psychological rewards in negotiations
The bargaining process not only concerns economic interests, but also involves the establishment of important psychological returns and self-efficacy.
Psychological value of the negotiation process: The satisfaction brought by successful negotiations comes not only from the economic benefits, but also from the process itself - the sense of accomplishment brought by using strategies, insight into the other party, and effective communication. Merchants deprived Xiao Zhao of this process of enjoyment, turning transactions into simple economic exchanges, lacking psychological returns.
Self-efficacy bruises: Bandura’s theory of self-efficacy pointed out that people need to build confidence in their abilities by overcoming challenges. A good negotiation should provide moderate challenges that allow buyers to feel their negotiation skills and judgment. The merchant's concessions made Xiao Zhao doubt his negotiating ability ("not because I have good skills, but because the other party can accept it"), and even felt that he might have made a mistake.
The hallucination of sense of control: Humans have a strong need for control, and the bargaining process provides some kind of hallucination of control. When the merchant agreed too readily, this sense of control was broken - Xiao Zhao realized that the price might be completely controlled by the merchant, and his so-called "negotiation" was just performed according to the script preset by the other party.
4. Regret Theory and Minimization of Regret: Cognitive Processing After Decision
Regret Theory provides another important perspective for understanding Xiao Zhao's anxiety.
Expectant Regret and Decision-Up: Looms and Sagden’s regret theory points out that decisions are based not only on expected results, but also on expected regret. The merchant's readily agreed immediately triggered anticipatory regret - "I could have done better." This feeling of regret has affected the psychological state even before the actual regret occurs.
Failure of regret minimization strategy: Many decision makers adopt the "regret minimization" strategy, i.e., select the options that are the least regretful regardless of the outcome. In Xiao Zhao's situation, bidding 150 yuan should be a conservative strategy (avoiding the embarrassment of being rejected if the bid is too low), but the merchant's reaction failed this strategy - he is now facing the possibility of regretting too high bid.
The pursuit of decision-making legitimacy: People need to build legitimacy for their decision-making. Normally, the price obtained through hard negotiations provides this legitimacy itself ("I did my best"). The transaction that is too easy lacks this kind of self-persuasion material, resulting in post-decision cognitive dissonance.
5. Social comparison and fair perception: relativity judgment in transactions
Xiao Zhao's psychological discomfort also stems from the mechanism of social comparison and fairness perception.
Concerns about transaction fairness: Adams's fairness theory points out that people care not only about absolute returns, but also about relative fairness. The merchant's unusually readily consent may imply that the transaction is extremely beneficial to the merchant, thus undermining Xiao Zhao's perception of fairness. He may suspect that the price he paid is still much higher than the real value of the goods or the price other customers paid.
The influence of group reference: Xiao Zhao may unconsciously compare his transactions to others ("How much does it cost for someone else to buy this product?"), or compare with his ideal self ("What price should a savvy consumer be able to talk about?"). The lack of reference information makes this comparison unfulfilled, aggravating the uneasiness caused by uncertainty.
6. Psychological adjustment and decision-making optimization: from restlessness to balance
Faced with psychological discomfort after this decision, individuals can use a variety of cognitive strategies to adjust.
The success of reframework: Cognitive reconstruction technology can help Xiao Zhao redefine success - not "may not get the lowest price", but "successfully received a 25% discount" or "buy goods at psychologically expected prices." This reframing can significantly change the emotional experience.
Focus transfer strategy: shift attention from "possible losses" to "actual gain"—focusing on the value and utility of the product itself, rather than the details of the transaction process. Practice shows that focusing on product user experience can effectively reduce regret after decision making.
Information collection and learning: regard this experience as a valuable learning opportunity, collect more information about commodity value and market conditions, provide a more complete reference framework for future decision-making, and enhance self-efficacy.
Accepting uncertainty: Recognizing that all decisions contain a certain degree of uncertainty and incomplete information, accepting "good enough" rather than pursuing "perfect" decision results, this cognitive flexibility is a sign of mental health.
Conclusion
Xiao Zhao's case reveals a profound psychological truth: the satisfaction of human decision-making comes not only from the results themselves, but also from the rationality, challenge and self-verification of the decision-making process. A "victory" that is too easy may deprive us of the joy of obtaining confirmation through hard work, triggering self-doubt and regret expectations.
This phenomenon goes far beyond the scope of market transactions and reflects a common dilemma faced by modern people: how do we make decisions and live peacefully with them in a world of incomplete information? How to find satisfaction in imperfect options? How to distinguish between real mistakes and inevitable uncertainties?
Ultimately, Xiao Zhao’s experience reminds us that economic rationality is only part of human decision-making, and psychological and emotional needs are equally important. A truly satisfactory deal requires not only fair prices, but also appropriate process challenges, sufficient information confirmation and self-efficacy verification. While pursuing maximization of economic interests, we should not ignore these seemingly subtle but extremely important psychological dimensions.
For every decision maker, learning to maintain psychological balance in uncertainty, find satisfaction in imperfection, and maintain self-sustainment in comparison may be more important than simply pursuing the optimal solution. Because in the end, the quality of decisions should not only be measured by the results, but also by the psychological peace after the decision. After all, the biggest price is not to pay dozens of yuan more, but to lose the joy and confidence that the transaction should be.