This study examines whether language modality – written vs. audio format – influences risk-taking decision-making behaviors. Drawing on dual-process theory, we hypothesized that when presented with positive expected value bets, audio conditions might encourage intuitive, risk-averse thinking; whereas written conditions might lead to analytical, rational thinking which would result in risk-taking. Participants (N=173) completed a hypothetical betting study with 16 trial bets presented in either written or audio format. The rates of risk-taking, perceived mental effort, and recall accuracy were compared across those conditions. Contrary to expectations, modality had no significant effect on risk-taking behaviors: participants in both conditions took the risks at nearly identical rates (64.7% written vs. 64.0% audio). Similarly, self-reported mental effort (M=5.53 written vs. M=5.62 audio) and recall accuracy (61.4% written vs. 62.4% audio) did not differ between groups. However, we did find a main effect of bet attractiveness: participants took significantly more risks when potential rewards far outweigh losses (76.3% for attractive risks vs. 52.5% unattractive, p <.001), aligning with economic decision theory that when the perceived reward highly outweighs the potential cost, individuals are more likely to accept risk. These findings suggest that for straightforward, numerically driven risks, language modality alone may not shift the propensity to take risks. The study contributes to our understanding of when and how modality effects emerge and offers implications for risk communication across domains, for example, finance.