IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v15y1995i6p661-675.html

Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Slovic
  • Torbjörn Malmfors
  • Daniel Krewski
  • C. K. Mertz
  • Nancy Neil
  • Sheryl Bartlett

Abstract

This study is a replication and extension in Canada of a previous study in the United States in which toxicologists and members of the public were surveyed to determine their attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions regarding risks from chemicals. This study of “intuitive vs. scientific toxicology” was motivated by the premise that different assumptions, conceptions, and values underlie much of the discrepancy between expert and lay views of chemical risks. The results showed that Canadian toxicologists had far lower perceptions of risk and more favorable attitudes toward chemicals than did the Canadian public. The public's attitudes were quite negative and showed the same lack of dose‐response sensitivity found in the earlier U.S. study. Both the public and the toxicologists lacked confidence in the value of animal studies for predicting human health risks. However, the public had great confidence in the validity of animal studies that found evidence of carcinogenicity, whereas such evidence was not considered highly predictive of human health risk by many toxicologists. Technical judgments of toxicologists were found to be associated with factors such as affiliation, gender, and worldviews. Implications of these data for risk communication are briefly discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Slovic & Torbjörn Malmfors & Daniel Krewski & C. K. Mertz & Nancy Neil & Sheryl Bartlett, 1995. "Intuitive Toxicology. II. Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks in Canada," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(6), pages 661-675, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:6:p:661-675
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb01338.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nancy Kraus & Torbjörn Malmfors & Paul Slovic, 1992. "Intuitive Toxicology: Expert and Lay Judgments of Chemical Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(2), pages 215-232, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Donald G. MacGregor & Paul Slovic & Torbjorn Malmfors, 1999. "“How Exposed Is Exposed Enough?” Lay Inferences About Chemical Exposure," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(4), pages 649-659, August.
    2. Morioka, Rika, 2014. "Gender difference in the health risk perception of radiation from Fukushima in Japan: The role of hegemonic masculinity," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 105-112.
    3. Angela Bearth & Gulbanu Kaptan & Sabrina Heike Kessler, 2022. "Genome-edited versus genetically-modified tomatoes: an experiment on people’s perceptions and acceptance of food biotechnology in the UK and Switzerland," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(3), pages 1117-1131, September.
    4. Vern R. Walker, 1995. "Direct Inference, Probability, and a Conceptual Gulf in Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(5), pages 603-609, October.
    5. Branden B. Johnson & Adam M. Finkel, 2016. "Public Perceptions of Regulatory Costs, Their Uncertainty and Interindividual Distribution," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(6), pages 1148-1170, June.
    6. Bernd Kowall & Jürgen Breckenkamp & Kristina Heyer & Gabriele Berg-Beckhoff, 2010. "German wide cross sectional survey on health impacts of electromagnetic fields in the view of general practitioners," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 55(5), pages 507-512, October.
    7. Meredith Frances Dobbie & Rebekah Ruth Brown, 2014. "A Framework for Understanding Risk Perception, Explored from the Perspective of the Water Practitioner," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 294-308, February.
    8. Regina Schoell & Claudia R. Binder, 2009. "System Perspectives of Experts and Farmers Regarding the Role of Livelihood Assets in Risk Perception: Results from the Structured Mental Model Approach," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 29(2), pages 205-222, February.
    9. Okumah, Murat & Yeboah, Ata Senior & Bonyah, Sylvester Kwaku, 2020. "What matters most? Stakeholders’ perceptions of river water quality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    10. Xuemei Fang & Liang Cao & Luyi Zhang & Binbin Peng, 2023. "Risk perception and resistance behavior intention of residents living near chemical industry parks: an empirical analysis in China," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 115(2), pages 1655-1675, January.
    11. Creed Tumlison & Rachael M. Moyer & Geoboo Song, 2017. "The Origin and Role of Trust in Local Policy Elites’ Perceptions of High‐Voltage Power Line Installations in the State of Arkansas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(5), pages 1018-1036, May.
    12. Gupta, Prerna & Satterfield, Terre & Kandlikar, Milind & Ramana, M.V., 2026. "Rethinking risk perception: Cultural cognition, gender, and caste in how Indians view nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    13. Bryan Caplan, 2009. "Irrational principals," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 22(2), pages 159-167, June.
    14. Nakayachi, Kazuya & Watabe, Motoki, 2005. "Restoring trustworthiness after adverse events: The signaling effects of voluntary "Hostage Posting" on trust," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 97(1), pages 1-17, May.
    15. Floris Goerlandt & Jie Li & Genserik Reniers, 2021. "The Landscape of Risk Perception Research: A Scientometric Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(23), pages 1-26, November.
    16. Maria Grazia Filomena & Bruno Pace & Massimo De Acetis & Antonio Aquino & Massimo Crescimbene & Marina Pace & Francesca Romana Alparone, 2023. "Play to Learn: A Game to Improve Seismic-Risk Perception," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(5), pages 1-11, March.
    17. Michael R. Greenberg & Dona F. Schneider, 1995. "Gender Differences in Risk Perception: Effects Differ in Stressed vs. Non‐Stressed Environments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 503-511, August.
    18. Dirk Scheer & Christina Benighaus & Ludger Benighaus & Ortwin Renn & Stefan Gold & Bettina Röder & Gaby‐Fleur Böl, 2014. "The Distinction Between Risk and Hazard: Understanding and Use in Stakeholder Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(7), pages 1270-1285, July.
    19. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser, 2006. "Marginal Trust in Risk Managers: Building and Losing Trust Following Decisions Under Uncertainty," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(5), pages 1187-1203, October.
    20. Lucia Savadori & Stefania Savio & Eraldo Nicotra & Rino Rumiati & Melissa Finucane & Paul Slovic, 2004. "Expert and Public Perception of Risk from Biotechnology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1289-1299, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:15:y:1995:i:6:p:661-675. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.