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.

摘要

由于机场乘客数量不断增加，定期安检达到了容量限制。因此，正在讨论替代安全检查以提高其效率。例如，不是简单地筛查所有乘客，而是可以彻底筛查随机选择的乘客样本。然而，基于这样的假设，与通过常规安全检查相比，可以发现的非法对象更少，这种基于随机化的安全检查可能会被认为不太安全。为了分析情况是否如此，我们进行了一项在线实验，从乘客和犯罪的角度调查了人们对传统和基于随机化的安全检查的看法和偏好。研究结果表明，在明确规定检测非法物品的概率相等的安全检查中，乘客对传统或基于随机化的安全检查没有表现出强烈的偏好。然而，犯罪分子更喜欢基于随机化的安全检查。因此，在安全方面，现状，即传统的安全检查，仍然是保持机场安全的最佳方式。