Communicating Imperatives Requires Psychological Closeness But Creates Psychological Distance

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.