AIRPORT SECURITY 1. Preliminary Findings of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Perceptions of Airport Security

Transcription

1 AIRPORT SECURITY 1 Running head: AIRPORT SECURITY Preliminary Findings of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Perceptions of Airport Security Michael J. Stevens, PhD, DHC, and Javad I. Afandiyev, PhD Illinois State University

2 AIRPORT SECURITY 2 Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael J. Stevens, Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Campus Box 4620, Normal, IL mjsteven@ilstu.edu or javad.efendi@gmail.com Preliminary Findings of a Mixed Methods Investigation of Perceptions of Airport Security In the 10 years since 9/11, the United States has tightened airport security markedly. According to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, more than 600 million passengers go through security checkpoints at airports. Few published studies have examined the psychology of airport security (e.g., Leo & Lawler, 2007, on public acceptance of x-ray screening systems). Many studies are now dated given ongoing improvements to airport security. Furthermore, researchers have tended to sample the opinions of airline managers, flight crews, and airport security personnel rather than airline passengers. Other studies are peripherally connected to airport security, such as airline performance (Bowen, Scarpellini-Metz, & Headley, 2005) and air-travel stress (Bricker, 2005). Virtually no research exists that has investigated perceptions of airport security among passengers, whose travel experiences are directly affected by such security procedures. The perceptions of passengers may have value in informing efforts to improve the quality of and cooperation with airport security procedures. Given the seminal nature of our study, we used a mixed methods design (i.e., both qualitative and quantitative data) to explore airline passengers positive and negative experiences of airport security and how important they view airport security. We also wanted to identify without preconceived hypotheses any demographic and background variables that might moderate such perceptions. Method Participants

3 AIRPORT SECURITY 3 Of the 168 participants, 102 (60.7%) were women and 66 (39.3%) men, with a mean age of 31.4 years (SD = 7.5). One hundred and nine (64.9%) were never married, 45 (26.8%) married, and 14 (8.3%) divorced. One hundred and twenty-nine (76.8%) were U.S. citizens, 24 (14.3%) held dual citizenship, and 15 (8.9%) were non-u.s. citizens. One hundred and twentyone (72.0%) were White, 11 (6.5%) Middle Eastern, 7 (4.2%) Black, 7 (4.2%) Hispanic, 6 (3.6%) Asian, and 16 (9.5%) multiracial. Eight (4.8%) graduated high school, 81 (48.2%) were college graduates, and 79 (47.0%) earned advanced degrees. Participants reported traveling on average 3.8 times per year (SD = 2.7), mostly alone (118, 70.2%) and/or with family (83, 49.4%). Measures All items were presented in fix order. Initially, open-ended question were posed about the frequency of air travel per year, the number of weeks since last traveling by air, and travel companions, if any. Next, two open-ended questions inquired about positive and negative experiences with airport security. These question were: What in particular do you like about airport-security procedures?, and What in particular do you dislike about airport-security procedures?. Then, the following Likert-type item was used to measure the perceived importance of airport security: On a scale of 1 (not important) to 5 (extremely important), how important are airport security procedures? Finally, demographic information was solicited on gender, age, marital status citizenship, ethnicity, and level of education. All demographic information was self-reported. Uncertainties about eliciting the cooperation of participants led us to adopt unusually brief measures. Procedure

4 AIRPORT SECURITY 4 One hundred and sixty-eight participants older than 18 years were solicited by the second author at publicly accessible areas in three major U.S. airports: Kennedy Airport in New York (n = 83, 48.2%), Los Angeles International Airport (n = 79, 47.6%), and Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston (n = 8, 4.8%). These airports are among the 10 busiest in the United States (Airports Council International, 2012), and provided opportunities to sample a diverse population of airline passengers. On site data collection did not require permission from airport administrators. Participants were approached individually and invited to answer questions about their experiences with airport security. After giving written consent, the questions were administered orally, with verbal responses recorded verbatim. Transcribed responses to the open-ended questions on experiences with airport security were unitized and thematically categorized by the authors. Responses were first divided into codeable units, with each unit representing a complete and independent idea, and placed into a single category; participants often generated more than one codeable unit per response. Inter-coder reliability was not determined because coding disagreements were resolved by consensus. A 10-category coding scheme emerged that included: Emotional Responses (positive or negative) Efficiency/Inefficiency of Security Procedures Fact-filled Responses General Responses (positive and statements of nothing negative to report; negative and statements of nothing positive to report) Accessibility of Security Information (adequate or inadequate) Ineffectiveness of Security Procedures

5 AIRPORT SECURITY 5 Attributes of Security Personnel (positive or negative) Profiling Safety (physical or psychological), and Uncodeable. Results Participants provided 848 codeable responses; 229 (27.7%) were Like responses, that is the total number of positive experiences with airport security. Participants gave 619 (73.0%) Dislike responses, which comprised the total number of negative experiences with airport security. We omit from discussion categories with fewer than 10% of codeable responses within Like or Dislike themes. One hundred and sixty-one (70.3%) of Like responses were coded as: General Responses - Negative (i.e., statements of nothing positive to report when asked to identify positive experiences) (n = 59, 25.8%; e.g., I don t like anything ), Psychological Safety (n = 39, 17.0%; e.g., I feel protected ), Physical Safety (n = 34, 14.8%; e.g., I can travel with no hazards on board ), and Attributes of Security Personnel - Positive (n = 31, 13.5%; e.g., When officers are polite ). Five hundred and eleven (82.6%) of Dislike responses were coded as: Emotional Responses - Negative (n = 167, 27.0%; e.g., The search is so humiliating ), Fact-filled Responses (n = 167, 27.0%; e.g., The length of time it takes ), Inefficiency of Security Procedures (n = 78, 12.6%; e.g., They could have organized it better ), and

6 AIRPORT SECURITY 6 Attributes of Security personnel - Negative (n = 67, 10.8%; e.g., The way staff treats people is wrong ). Age, citizenship, ethnicity, education level, and frequency of travel were correlated with importance ratings (ps.005). Because of small cell sizes, we collapsed some subgroups within demographic variables (dual and non-us citizenship; never married and divorced; Asian, Black, Hispanic, Middle Eastern, and multiracial; and high school and college graduates). A stepwise regression of these variables on importance ratings was significant, R 2 =.391, F(4, 163) = , p <.001, f 2 = Four demographic variables formed the best predictive model of importance ratings: Ethnicity ( R 2 =.178, F(1, 166) = , p <.001, f 2 = 0.216, =.312), Education Level ( R 2 =.085, F(1, 165) = , p <.001, f 2 = 0.093, = -.219), Marital status ( R 2 =.065, F(1, 164) = , p <.001, f 2 = 0.069, = -.309), and Citizenship ( R 2 =.063, F(1, 163) = , p <.001, f 2 = 0.065, = -.262). Non-white, less well-educated, not currently married, U.S. citizens gave the highest importance ratings for airport security. Discussion Participants reported substantially more negative than positive experiences with airport security. Positive and negative experiences seemed to reflect the impact of immediate personal encounters with airport security procedures. Favorable perceptions underscored a sense of physical and psychological protection and well-being as well as appealing qualities of security personnel; they also accentuated the absence of positive comments. Participants favorable responses overlooked fact-based elements of airport security and issues related to

7 AIRPORT SECURITY 7 the practicality, competence, and usefulness of such security procedures. Conversely, unfavorable views of airport security emphasized negative emotional experiences, procedural disorganization, and distasteful characteristics of security personnel. Given concerns about passenger profiling, we were surprised that this unfavorable aspect of airport security was seldom mentioned. Future studies needed to uncover the positive and negative experiences of airline passengers who represent different demographic groups. Participants rated the importance of airport security between moderate and extreme. Demographic variables that moderated such perceptions were ethnicity, level of education, marital status, and citizenship. These findings suggest that non-white airline passengers who are less well-educated, not currently married, and U.S. citizens may perceive greater risk to themselves and their families when traveling, irrespective of gender, age, frequency or recency of air travel, or the presence of travel companions. These groups may experience greater threat of harm, and hence attribute more importance to airport security, because of collectively held schemas that are activated by airport-environment cues. We encourage efforts to identify the cognitive mechanisms that explain the influence of demographic variables on the perceived importance of airport security. We hope to see research on perceptions of airport security that employs larger, more representative cross-national samples of domestic and international travelers, uses a wider array of more psychometrically sophisticated measures, and controls for the potential effect of the interviewer s demographic profile on passenger responses. Such research would expand understanding of the experience of airport security and guide its improvement. We are already phasing in a more elaborate international extension of this research.

8 AIRPORT SECURITY 8 References Airports Council International (2010). Annual traffic data: Passengers. Retrieved from Bowen, B. D., Scarpellini-Metz, N., & Headley, D. E. (2005). Understanding consumer preference: Findings from the airline survey. International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, 5, Bricker, J. B. (2005). Development and evaluation of the air travel stress scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 52, doi: / Leo, J. G., & Lawler, J. P. (2007). A study of passenger perception and sensitivity to airport backscatter x-ray technologies. International Business & Economics Research Journal, 6,