The reason a range signals more than a single figure

One candidate names a salary figure. Another names a band of three thousand and explains what sits at each end. The second candidate settles closer to the top of their band than the first settles to their single number, and the negotiation is shorter. The two opening positions were arithmetically similar.

What everyone sees

A range looks like weakness, because it appears to concede the lower bound before anyone has argued for it. Negotiation advice frequently says so. Under that reading the counterparty should simply take the bottom of the band, which is what makes the observed outcomes surprising.

What is actually happening

Ames and Mason’s experiments on bolstering ranges found that certain ranges produced better outcomes than equivalent point offers, because a range conveys information about flexibility and about the reasoning behind the figure. A well-constructed band anchors on its upper bound while signalling cooperativeness, and it invites the counterparty to argue about position within the band rather than about the band itself.

Why it stays hidden

The mechanism hides because the surface reading is so intuitive. A range does contain a lower number, and that number is genuinely visible, so the intuition is not baseless — it simply ignores what the range does to the frame. Failed cases also disappear: a range without a stated rationale behaves much closer to its bottom, so the technique is remembered as unreliable rather than as conditional.