Recognising the effect of the initial figure
Studies on judgement show that how information is presented can influence assessment. In real estate, an initial price heard can become an overly central benchmark. This does not mean every decision is irrational. To limit this effect, return to the criteria, documented comparables, and the total budget. Also present points that do not support your recommendation.
The method in practice
A strikethrough price can serve as an anchoring point even when its initial value is not established. Return to the total cost, comparable references, and their quality. Another trap: looking only for information favourable to the first property appreciated. Include a column for "what could invalidate my recommendation" in the grid. These benchmarks from decision research do not allow you to diagnose bias in an individual. They serve to improve your own process. In a fictional example, a 10% discount does not make an offer relevant if the charges, works, and essential criteria remain unknown.
Fictional example
A dramatic slashed price is no substitute for comparison with relevant properties or examining what is included.
Do not confuse a displayed discount with demonstrated value.
Structuring a fair comparison
Present the same headings for each option: suitability for the project, known facts, unknown factors, and compromises. Avoid adding a clearly unsuitable property solely to make the second one appear more attractive. Ask what would change their current view. This question helps uncover counter-evidence without arguing with the client or overwhelming their decision with a feature list.
The method in practice
Use a matrix with criteria, agreed importance, evidence, and unknowns. Also present the limitations of the recommended property and a credible alternative. If a criterion is missing, ask whether it remains a deal-breaker before concluding. The decision may be to continue the search or defer commitment until a document is received. At the end, get them to rephrase what led to the choice: this feedback reveals understanding far better than a simple yes. The objective is not to eliminate emotion, but to give it a place compatible with examining actual consequences and constraints.
Fictional example
Option A suits the daily commute; B offers more floor area. Both sheets also show their limitations, with the same level of detail.
A fair comparison must be capable of contradicting your preference.
Clarifying shared decision-making
Ask who is involved in the decision and how each person wishes to be included, without inferring authority from age, gender, or family status. Invite the relevant participants to express their criteria. Rephrase points of agreement and disagreement before proposing next steps. If a participant is absent, agree on the format and timing for them to review the information.
The method in practice
When several people participate, ask how they wish to decide, who uses the property, who needs to be consulted, and at what stage. Do not infer authority from gender, age, or the person who speaks the most. First propose an individual expression of criteria, then a joint synthesis. An average score can mask a legitimate veto: the presence of stairs is not automatically offset by a nice view if step-free access is essential. Make disagreements visible and seek clarification, without turning the viewing into a competition between participants.
Fictional example
Two joint buyers do not prioritise the same things. You record their criteria separately, then propose a viewing focused on the points of disagreement.
Making disagreement explicit prevents a false sense of consensus.
Your practical application work
Two fictional joint buyers hesitate between a central flat and a suburban house. One focuses on floor area, the other on commute time. Build their comparison.
- A grid of three shared criteria
- One question addressed to each participant
- A next step that respects the disagreement
Sources and benchmarks
- Daniel Kahneman · Nobel LectureReference source for the topic. Scenarios, working methods and durations are educational constructs created by CBE; the source does not certify them.