Keep the status quo: randomization-based security checks might reduce crime deterrence at airports

Abstract

Due to the increasing number of passengers at airports, regular security checks reached their capacity limits. Thus, alternative security checks are being discussed to increase their efficiency. For example, instead of screening all passengers briefly, a randomly selected sample of passengers could be screened thoroughly. However, such randomization-based security checks could be perceived as less secure based on the assumption that fewer illegal objects would be uncovered than through regular security checks. To analyze whether this is the case, we conducted an online experiment that investigated people’s perceptions of and preference for traditional and randomization-based security checks from both the passenger and the criminal perspectives. The findings suggest that within security checks with explicitly stated equal probabilities of detecting illegal objects, passengers do not exhibit strong preferences for either the traditional or the randomization-based security checks. However, randomization-based security checks would be preferred by criminals. Thus, with regard to security, the status quo, namely traditional security checks, is still the best way to keep airports secure.