Language modality, defined as the format of how a message is delivered, has been found to impact thinking performance, thus possibly leading to differences in various social judgments. Here, we test how the modality in which accidental harm is conveyed—spoken or written modality—influences perceived empathy with an accidental harm doer and forgiveness judgments. Previous research indicates that spoken modality elicits intuitive processing while written modality promotes analytical processing. I hypothesized that listening to the accidental harm, as compared to reading, will reduce forgiveness judgments. I found that when harm-doers acted with care, listening to their account of their accidental harmful behavior tended to result in lower forgiveness judgments compared to reading about it. This result suggests that voice might prompt people to focus more on outcome than intention information of accidental harm. Furthermore, I also found that empathy towards the harm doer and perceived negligence predict forgiveness judgments. This research contributes to validating language modality theories as well as adding literature accounts for the role of negligence in forgiveness judgment. Our findings suggest that public relations strategies of companies might consider prioritizing written over spoken communication for public apologies or addressing incidents of accidental harm to gain higher forgiveness.
Z YANG (Sat,) studied this question.