The perceived costs and benefits that drive the acceptability of risk-based security screenings at airports

Due to the increase in air travel seen in recent decades, regular airport security checks have reached their capacity limits. Identifying efficient and cost-effective security procedures that do not inconvenience passengers more than conventional procedures represents a major challenge and an important endeavor. One approach that has been discussed involves risk-based security checks. Passengers who are perceived to pose a low risk of engaging in criminal activities are screened to a lesser degree (or can even board without being screened), which means that security resources can be targeted toward more high-risk passengers. While this approach offers benefits for low-risk passengers (e.g., shorter wait times), it is considered controversial due to the need to identify and classify passengers' level of risk. The present online study sought to investigate whether risk-based security checks represent an acceptable alternative to the traditional approach as well as to examine the main drivers of acceptability in this regard. The findings indicate that people's perception of risk-based security checks (security perception, fairness, and travel comfort) is the main driver of acceptability, seemingly being more important than individual characteristics (e.g., confidence in security personnel). However, the findings also suggest that risk based security checks are not seen as an adequate alternative to the current approach, as they are commonly associated with a perceived loss of both security and fairness.

Automated summary

Due to the increase in air travel, traditional airport security checks have reached capacity limits. Finding efficient and less inconvenient security procedures is a major challenge. Risk-based security checks, although controversial, can potentially reduce screening for low-risk passengers by targeting high-risk ones.