The reason concessions should shrink, not hold

One negotiator moves by five, then five, then five. Another moves by five, then two, then one half. The second sequence gives away less and closes sooner, because the pattern of the moves is itself a message about where the moves end.

What everyone sees

Concessions are counted as amounts, and the total given away is treated as the relevant figure. Under that view three fives is simply fifteen. The counterparty is reading something else: a series, from which the next term can be predicted.

What is actually happening

Negotiation research on concession patterns finds that the rate of movement communicates the location of the reserve point. Equal steps are consistent with an unexhausted reserve, so they invite another round; sharply decreasing steps are consistent with approaching a limit. Studies of concession behaviour, including Kwon and Weingart’s work on how concession patterns are interpreted, find that the pattern shapes expectations and perceived fairness independently of the amounts.

Why it stays hidden

The signal hides because concessions are made under pressure, one at a time, in response to whatever was just said. Nobody plans the third move while making the first, and the sequence is only visible in retrospect — to the other side, who have been recording it. The negotiator sees a series of reasonable responses; the counterparty sees a trend line.