There is (Some) Home-Field Advantage in Distributive Negotiations
For distributive negotiations, location is not necessarily a trivial detail—it can be a structural variable that can shift outcomes in predictable ways.
Many managers assume that negotiation outcomes are driven by preparation, skill, and leverage. Location is often treated as a logistical detail.
A paper by Brown and Baer (2011) suggests otherwise.
Across three experiments, the authors show that in purely distributive negotiations, negotiating on one’s home territory produces a measurable economic advantage. Residents generally claim more value than visitors in the same negotiation task.
The Core Finding
Across three studies, residents claimed significantly more value than visitors in a zero-sum negotiation. When the authors combined the data across studies, the magnitude was striking:
Resident buyers claimed about 70% of the bargaining zone, compared to about 47% for buyers in neutral location and 27% for visiting buyers.
Resident and neutral sellers claimed about 63% and 64% of the zone, compared to about 40% for visiting sellers.
That is not a marginal advantage. It is economically meaningful.
Why It Happens: Confidence
The mechanism is psychological.
Residents reported higher confidence before the negotiation began, and confidence partially mediated the relationship between occupancy status and value claimed.
In other words:
Home territory → higher confidence → more value claimed.
Importantly, when the researchers experimentally boosted visitors’ confidence before the negotiation, the home-field advantage disappeared.
That is strong causal evidence that confidence is not just correlated with performance—it helps produce it.
Is It a Resident Boost or a Visitor Penalty?
Because the researchers included a neutral condition, they could disentangle the source.
The evidence suggests:
Part of the effect is a resident advantage (residents outperform neutrals).
Part of it is a visitor disadvantage (visitors underperform neutrals).
So negotiating in your own space lifts you up. Negotiating in someone else’s space pushes you down.
What This Means for Managers
This evidence applies to distributive contexts—price discussions, compensation negotiations, vendor contracts—where one side’s gain is the other’s loss.
Three implications follow:
1. Location is a structural advantage.
Your space increases your odds of claiming value.
2. Neutral ground reduces asymmetry.
3. Psychological preparation matters.
If you must negotiate on the other side’s turf, deliberate confidence-building (say, via preparation, doing one’s homework) can offset the gap.
The Managerial Bottom Line
In distributive negotiations, the table is not neutral.
Territory changes confidence. Confidence changes aspiration. Aspiration changes value claimed.
Where you negotiate is not logistics. It is leverage.
Personal note: I do believe the home-field effect is real, and the evidence supports it. That said, location is not what drives strong negotiation performance. We should never rely on structural advantages—whether territory, status, or context—as substitutes for fundamentals. Preparation, making the first offer, making concession appropriately, etc. come first. Location can serve as a useful lever that slightly tilts confidence and outcomes in distributive settings—but only after the basics are firmly in place.
Reference: Brown, G., & Baer, M. (2011). Location in negotiation: Is there a home field advantage?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 114(2), 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2010.10.004
