Slovic, PaulMalmfors, TorbjornKrewski, DanielMertz, C. K.Neil, NancyBartlett, Sheryl2017-06-142017-06-141995Slovic, P., Malmfors, T., Krewski, D., Mertz, C. K., Neil, N., & Bartlett, S. (1995). Intuitive toxicology II: Expert and lay judgments of chemical risks in Canada. Risk Analysis, 15(6), 661-675.https://hdl.handle.net/1794/2241935 pagesThis 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.enCreative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0-USIntuitive toxicologyRisk perceptionChemical risksExpert judgementRisk communicationArticle