This article evaluates the psychological correlates of imperative speech through pronouns. We demonstrate that people communicate with more collective immediacy (“we” words) when using imperatives than nonimperatives in an experiment (Study 1, N = 828) and field studies of American politicians (Study 2a: N = 123,678 speeches), and Joseph Stalin (Study 2b: N = 593 speeches). However, respondents experience a psychological distancing effect after an imperative (fewer “I” words). This experimental pattern (Study 3: N = 852) also holds in the field using U.S. Supreme Court dissents from the Roberts Court (Study 4: N = 644). Exploratory findings suggest that third-person plural pronouns (“they” words) are used more when communicating imperative speech relative to nonimperative speech. Our evidence supports an interpersonal imperatives asymmetry: imperatives demand psychological support when communicating how the world must be, but they undermine the autonomy of respondents. Social and psychological implications of these data are discussed.

中文翻译：

---

沟通命令需要心理上的亲密，但会产生心理上的距离

本文通过代词评估祈使句的心理相关性。我们证明，在实验（研究 1，N = 828）和美国政治家的实地研究（研究 2a：N = 123,678 次演讲）和 Joseph Stalin 中，使用祈使句比使用祈使句时，人们使用更多的集体直接性（“我们”词） （研究 2b：N = 593 次演讲）。但是，受访者在命令后（较少的“我”字样）会体验到心理疏远效应。这种实验模式（研究 3：N = 852）在使用美国最高法院来自罗伯茨法院的异议（研究 4：N = 644）时也适用。探索性发现表明，相对于非命令式语音，在传达命令式语音时更多地使用第三人称复数代词（“他们”词）。我们的证据支持人际关系不对称：必要性在传达世界必须是怎样的时候需要心理支持，但它们削弱了受访者的自主权。讨论了这些数据的社会和心理影响。