Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening

The growing number of anti-terrorism policies has elevated public concerns about discrimination. Within the context of airport security screening, the current study examines how American travelers value the principle of equal protection by quantifying the "equity premium" that they are willing to sacrifice to avoid screening procedures that result in differential treatments. In addition, we applied the notion of procedural justice to explore the effect of alternative selective screening procedures on the value of equal protection. Two-hundred and twenty-two respondents were randomly assigned to one of three selective screening procedures: (1) randomly, (2) using behavioral indicators, or (3) based on demographic characteristics. They were asked to choose between airlines using either an equal or a discriminatory screening procedure. While the former requires all passengers to be screened in the same manner, the latter mandates all passengers undergo a quick primary screening and, in addition, some passengers are selected for a secondary screening based on a predetermined selection criterion. Equity premiums were quantified in terms of monetary cost, wait time, convenience, and safety compromise. Results show that equity premiums varied greatly across respondents, with many indicating little willingness to sacrifice to avoid inequitable screening, and a smaller minority willing to sacrifice anything to avoid the discriminatory screening. The selective screening manipulation was effective in that equity premiums were greater under selection by demographic characteristics compared to the other two procedures.

[1]  Jeffery J. Mondak,et al.  Examining the Terror Exception Terrorism and Commitments to Civil Liberties , 2012 .

[2]  M. Peffley,et al.  A Multiple Values Model of Political Tolerance , 2001 .

[3]  Stephen J. Schulhofer,et al.  Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in Counter- Terrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans , 2010 .

[4]  Ralph L. Keeney,et al.  Value-Focused Thinking: A Path to Creative Decisionmaking , 1992 .

[5]  Carol Mansfield,et al.  Valuing a homeland security policy: Countermeasures for the threats from shoulder mounted missiles , 2008 .

[6]  Agyemang Frimpong,et al.  Introduction of full body image scanners at the airports: a delicate balance of protecting privacy and ensuring national security , 2011 .

[7]  Siddharth Suri,et al.  Conducting behavioral research on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk , 2010, Behavior research methods.

[8]  Fynnwin Prager,et al.  Estimating behavioral changes for transportation modes after terrorist attacks in London, Madrid, and Tokyo , 2010 .

[9]  P. Slovic,et al.  Risk Perception and Affect , 2006 .

[10]  Lauren J. Thomas,et al.  Rail passenger perceptions of risk and safety and priorities for improvement , 2006, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[11]  Detlof von Winterfeldt,et al.  Exploring Reductions in London Underground Passenger Journeys Following the July 2005 Bombings , 2011, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[12]  Robin L. Dillon,et al.  Evolving Risk Perceptions About Near-Miss Terrorist Events , 2014, Decis. Anal..

[13]  T. Tyler,et al.  Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? , 2001, Behavioral sciences & the law.

[14]  D. Davis,et al.  Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America , 2004 .

[15]  Heather Rosoff,et al.  The Dynamics of Evolving Beliefs, Concerns Emotions, and Behavioral Avoidance Following 9/11: A Longitudinal Analysis of Representative Archival Samples , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[16]  Peter Gordon,et al.  The Economic Impacts of a Terrorist Attack on the U.S. Commercial Aviation System , 2007, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[17]  R. Zeckhauser,et al.  Recollection Bias and the Combat of Terrorism , 2005, The Journal of Legal Studies.

[18]  Phani Tej Adidam,et al.  The Impact of Perceived Fairness on Satisfaction: Are Airport Security Measures Fair? Does it Matter? , 2006 .

[19]  Gerd Gigerenzer,et al.  Out of the Frying Pan into the Fire: Behavioral Reactions to Terrorist Attacks , 2006, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[20]  H. Kunreuther,et al.  Policy Tenure Under the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , 2012, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[21]  C. Brewin,et al.  Psychological and behavioural reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005: cross sectional survey of a representative sample of Londoners , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[22]  Michael D. Buhrmester,et al.  Amazon's Mechanical Turk , 2011, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[23]  Carol W. Lewis The Clash between Security and Liberty in the U.S. Response to Terror , 2005 .

[24]  Stephen J. Schulhofer,et al.  Legitimacy and Deterrence Effects in Counter- Terrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans , 2010 .

[25]  W. Kip Viscusi,et al.  Sacrificing Civil Liberties to Reduce Terrorism Risks , 2003 .

[26]  T. Tyler,et al.  Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. , 2006, Annual review of psychology.

[27]  Jennifer Grover,et al.  Aviation Security: Improved Testing, Evaluation, and Performance Measurement Could Enhance Effectiveness , 2015 .

[28]  Panagiotis G. Ipeirotis,et al.  Running Experiments on Amazon Mechanical Turk , 2010, Judgment and Decision Making.

[29]  C. Brewin,et al.  Enduring consequences of terrorism: 7-month follow-up survey of reactions to the bombings in London on 7 July 2005 , 2007, British Journal of Psychiatry.