I can't answer your question directly, and I think that the answer might vary by culture. Peripherally relevant, there was a recent article (in Psychological Science?) showing that Westerners are most compliant with nudges (e.g., recycling, hygiene) when they are phrased in terms of what most people do. For example, people are more likely to recycle when they are informed that "85% of your neighbours recycle" than if they get a message like "recycling is good for the environment."

Rhianon Allen , thanks really much for your insight! I think I've found something useful to my aim; here's the references, these works are enlightening. Apparently, it's a little niche, as all of the three works have the same authors.

Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2017). How “you” makes meaning. Science, 355(6331), 1299-1302.

Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2018). That’s how “you” do it: Generic you expresses norms during early childhood. Journal of experimental child psychology, 165, 183-195.

Orvell, A., Kross, E., & Gelman, S. A. (2019). “You” and “I” in a foreign land: The persuasive force of generic-you. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 85, 103869.

I keep on waiting for other plausible suggestions =)

thanks, once again!

As it seems, such phrasing approaches vary as to cultural perspectives which include reference to the morphosyntactic properties of the given items. In general, it might be the case that when 'we' is used such expressions, it will sound more polite because it involves the text-ptoducer. 'You' indirectly will exclude reference to the text-producer, but includes the text-receiver.

Let's keep in mind that "we " and "you" might or might not inherently inovlve a refrence to reverence.

Regards

Mahdi Inaayah Kareem al-Utbi , thanks really much for your insight; I'll consider these aspects carefully. I deal with Italian pronouns, so I should keep into consideration several differences with the English analogous pronouns and pronominalization strategies. Unfortunately, I managed to find just a few experimental works on this issue. I hope to find something else soon ;)

For at theoretical framework, check the literature on enunciation (French: énonciation), from Emile Benveniste to Catherine Kerbrat-Orecchioni. Enunciation deals with personal pronouns and other representations of speaker and hearer in language, especially in performative language.

Alessandro Ansani

From a linguistic perspective, what you ask about relates in part to the notion of agency and whether a language user thinks collectively, grouping herself/ himself with the addressed other or prefers to draw the line between her/ him and others. The choice of one or the other may reflect ideological strains as well as questions of belonging and conformity in opposition to alienation and nonconformity . Likewise, linguistic choices expose whether speakers intend their language to be direct and clear, by using structures in the active voice or otherwise indirect and ambiguous by adopting the passive voice. Speakers often adapt their language to the needs of the speech situations and social/ political/ religious contexts. Politeness and/ or fear, for instance, lead the speakers to use less direct linguistic structures to avoid offending others or to escape censorship.

On another note, according to Michael Halliday’s functional grammar, the notion of theme and rheme or new/ given information has to do with what information language users want to draw attention to and focalize as “ new” in the subject position ( theme) and what information they need to give less attention to (rheme). I hope this helps.