Evaluating the Perceived Efficacy of Randomized Security Measures at Airports

Abstract

Both the increase in traveler numbers and the heightened threat posed by terrorism in recent years represent significant challenges to airport security measures. To ensure that a high level of security is maintained, randomized security checks have been proposed as a promising alternative to traditional security approaches. The use of randomized checks means that only a specific number of people are selected for security screening. However, the likely effects of such a change in security procedures on travelers’ security perceptions and on the deterrence of criminal activities remain unclear. Thus, the present study examines how varying the percentage of people screened during security checks influences people's security perceptions. In two online experiments, the participants were asked to imagine that they sought to smuggle an explosive dummy past an airport security check. The only information provided was the number of people screened during security checks, which was manipulated between‐subjects in the first experiment and within‐subjects in the second experiment. The participants then had to rate their security perception (i.e., the perceived likelihood of successfully smuggling the explosive dummy). The findings show that people perceive traditional security checks to be safer than randomized checks, irrespective of whether 90% or 30% of people are screened. Hence, if randomized security checks would indeed be implemented, it would automatically lead to a decreased perception of security. Furthermore, this decreased security perception might lead to an actual reduction in security, as the deterrence of criminal activities could also be reduced.

Increasing the deterrence of airport security checks by managing expectations through communication: a hypothetical scenario experiment

“…First, our study confirms prior findings (Scurich and John 2014;Stotz et al 2020Stotz et al , 2021 that people with illegal intentions might prefer randomised security checks compared to traditional security checks (i.e., communicated through the airport's website). This can be seen in the results that participants in the randomised condition were more likely to smuggle on weekends when it was implied that randomised checks would happen more often, were more certain about this choice and expressed higher perceived likelihood of successfully smuggling the illegal objects.…”

“…Our study adds the following key findings to the existing research on the perception of randomised or risk-based security checks at airports (Nguyen and John 2018;Nguyen et al 2017;Scurich and John 2014;Stotz et al 2020Stotz et al , 2021.…”

“…The findings of these studies suggest partly detrimental effects of changing airport security practices from the status quo to alternative security checks, namely on deterrence of criminal activities and on fairness and security perception at airports (Nguyen & John 2018;Nguyen et al 2017;Scurich & John 2014;Stotz et al 2020Stotz et al , 2021. Particularly, randomised security checks (i.e., where only a random sample of passengers are screened) were associated with a higher perceived likelihood of being able to successfully smuggle an explosive dummy when compared to traditional security checks 1 (i.e., where all passengers are screened) (Stotz et al 2020). This effect was uncovered regardless of whether the majority (i.e., 90 %) or only a minority of passenger (i.e., 30 %) are screened (Stotz et al 2020).…”

“…This was a hypothetical scenario experiment with a 2 (type of security check: randomised versus traditional) by 2 (unpredictability cue: present versus not present) design, loosely based on prior scenario experiments (Scurich and John 2014;Stotz et al 2020Stotz et al , 2021. The participants were introduced to the scenario with the following text: 'On the following page, we will present you with a fictional scenario.…”

“…Particularly, randomised security checks (i.e., where only a random sample of passengers are screened) were associated with a higher perceived likelihood of being able to successfully smuggle an explosive dummy when compared to traditional security checks 1 (i.e., where all passengers are screened) (Stotz et al 2020). This effect was uncovered regardless of whether the majority (i.e., 90 %) or only a minority of passenger (i.e., 30 %) are screened (Stotz et al 2020). This suggests that the participants did not consider the likelihood of being checked (30-90 %) to determine their potential success as smugglers, but rather fundamentally differentiated between the traditional security check and an alternative security measure, which allows some passengers to pass through without being checked.…”