Strengths:

• Allows you to control the debate and avoid immediate opposition.
• Reinforces credibility by showing that you have thought through the counter-arguments.

Weaknesses:

• Risk of highlighting an objection that the counterpart would not have considered.
• Can be ineffective if the counterpart perceives the anticipation as an evasion.

When you know that an objection is going to be raised and you want to neutralise it before it gains momentum.
When a counterpart is critical and you want to give them a pre-emptive answer to avoid an unfavourable debate.

Anticipating objections is particularly effective in conflictual negotiations, sales of products in highly competitive markets and political speeches, because it prevents a dispute before it even takes shape.

• Defuse resistance before it crystallises into defensive positions, by addressing the objection while it is still only a latent doubt
• Reinforce credibility and the impression of command by showing that you have considered the counter-arguments (perceived-competence effect)
• Regain the initiative and control of the discussion's agenda rather than enduring attacks point by point
• Immunise the counterpart against future counter-arguments from a competitor or a third party (inoculation effect)
• Save time and gain fluidity by avoiding repeated deadlocks on predictable points

Sales · The salesperson who announces the high price before the question: A B2B salesperson presenting a premium software solution knows that the price, appreciably above the competition, will be the first sticking point. Rather than waiting for the objection, they build it in from the outset: "You will notice that our price is around 30% above the market. That is a deliberate choice, and here are the three concrete reasons why our clients reckon it saves them more over twelve months." By raising the objection and its rebuttal themselves, they turn an anticipated stumbling block into a value argument, and deprive the buyer of the element of surprise that would have hardened their position.

Legal · The barrister who defuses the weakness in their case: Before a jury, a defence barrister knows that the opposing side will exploit their client's chequered past. Instead of letting the prosecution reveal it like a bombshell, they address it themselves in their opening speech: they acknowledge the fact, put it in context and explain why it is not relevant to the case being tried. This technique, known in rhetoric as prolepsis, robs the opponent of the dramatic effect of the revelation and presents the speaker as transparent and honest.

• Anticipating objections that the counterpart did not have in mind, and thereby creating them out of thin air by sowing a doubt that did not exist
• Multiplying anticipated objections to the point of appearing defensive or suggesting that the case is fragile
• Rebutting the objection in a caricatured form (straw man), which weakens credibility when the counterpart puts forward their real, more robust version
• Naming the objection without having prepared a convincing answer, which amounts to reinforcing it
• Adopting a defensive or apologetic tone instead of a confident one, betraying anxiety and inviting the attack

This is one of the most defensible techniques in the repertoire, and that must be said before marking out its limits: addressing an objection before it hardens means acknowledging that it is well-founded, showing that you have worked through the case from the other party's point of view, and sparing them from having to battle to be heard. It adds nothing to the offer, but it deceives no one: the objections addressed are genuine. The limit is more subtle and worth knowing. Formulating the objection on the other party's behalf also means formulating it in your own terms, often in its weakest form, and thereby draining it of the force it would have had in theirs. The counterpart, seeing their doubt already named and already settled, gives up reformulating it, and leaves with a reservation still intact but now unspeakable. The technique then tips over from preparation into the confiscation of speech. The remedy is simple: after anticipating, open up explicitly ("and on your side, what have I missed?"). Addressing an objection before it wounds is preparation; formulating it on the other party's behalf in order to weaken it is a confiscation.

• William J. McGuire (1964) Inducing resistance to persuasion: Some contemporary approaches Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 1, Academic Press, DOI: 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60052-0
• Robert B. Cialdini (2001) Influence: Science and Practice (4th ed.) Allyn & Bacon
• Roger Fisher & William Ury (1981) Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In Houghton Mifflin