The Paradox of Safety Communication: The Effect of Communication Framing on Psychological Safety and Reporting Intention in Organizations

Safety reporting is essential in safety‐critical organizations, yet fear of blame may discourage employees from reporting safety concerns. This study examines how managerial communication framing shapes employees' postexposure psychological responses and reporting intention. A scenario‐based experiment was conducted with 180 frontline employees from the power industry in China. Participants were randomly assigned to read an empathy‐based, neutral, or blame‐based managerial incident memo. They then reported their emotional reactions, trust in management, perceived psychological safety, and reporting intention. Sequential mediation analyses tested a dual‐pathway model. Empathy‐based framing generated more positive emotional reactions, higher trust in management, greater perceived psychological safety, and stronger reporting intention than neutral or blame‐based framing. Mediation analyses supported two complementary sequential pathways: an affective pathway from communication framing to positive emotions, psychological safety, and reporting intention, and a cognitive‐relational pathway from communication framing to trust in management, psychological safety, and reporting intention. The findings provide initial scenario‐based evidence that managerial communication framing can influence employees' emotional reactions, trust‐related inferences, perceived psychological safety, and self‐reported willingness to report safety concerns in a Chinese power‐industry context. Incident‐reporting protocols and supervisory training may benefit from empathy‐oriented, learning‐focused communication. Supportive managerial framing may reduce fear of blame, support trust‐related inferences, and enhance employees' perceived safety in reporting.