I attempted to smuggle contraband onto a plane a couple of weeks ago. Granted, it was a water bottle I’d stuck in my backpack and forgotten about, but it was contraband nonetheless. A stern, mustachioed airport-security guy noticed it, scolded me, and threw the bottle away. So long, Dasani.
But did the fact that the security guy found my water bottle make it less likely that he’d find, say, a knife? A new study suggests that it might have. In previous studies, it has been established that radiologists who have noticed one abnormality in a body scan have a greater chance of missing a second abnormality. This concept is called “satisfaction of search”— i.e., once you find something, you tend to stop looking.
This new study examined whether that concept also applies to airport-security scans, and it seems that it does. In fact, the researchers found, the problem may be worse among luggage screeners because they are under more time pressure than radiologists. They write that scrutinizing luggage for toothpaste and hair gel may come “potentially at the expense of finding additional targets which may be better concealed and less frequent, such as scissors, box cutters, or pocketknives.”
The study was conducted using Duke University students and computer simulations. So it’s reasonable to ask whether trained airport-security personnel would fall victim to the satisfaction-of-search issue. But, according to the authors, previous research suggests that, no matter how much training you have, the problem persists.
Obviously there are valid reasons for being concerned about potential weapons disguised as everyday items. But there may be a cost to being too careful. And not just the three bucks I spent to buy another water.
(The paper was written by Mathias S. Fleck, Ehsan Samei, and Stephen R. Mitroff. You can read it on Mr. Fleck’s Web site—scroll down to the first listed publication.)
4 Responses to Of Hair Gel and Handguns: Why More Searching Is Less
11182967 - April 26, 2010 at 4:51 pm
“Satisfaction of search” is a cousin to the notion of a “red herring” in a mystery story–a false clue planted for purposes of misdirection. It also reminds me that I used to make a particular show of bringing coffee to class in a distinctive mug–when students parodied me they invariably focused on the coffee mug and tended to overlook personal characteristics whose mocking I might have found less congenial. Misdirection is nothing new.
lark5 - April 26, 2010 at 5:21 pm
I have made two airplane trips in the past three months, my only two airplane trips in the past 30 years.I fit the profile of a terrorist. I am a married mother of five, grandmother of another five, with white hair. I wear no make up and tend to dress fairly modestly (as do a number of women of a certain age). Twice, I was pulled out of the security line for a pat down. “Too bulky” the TSA official proclaimed. Indeed, I am a bit too bulky, but hardly bulky enough, even in my slacks and overdress to be packing dangerous materials. So I went out and bought a dress/suit for the next trip. Still too bulky, unless I wanted to go through security in my undies . . . I looked at the other Security problems . . . uh oh . . . my husband was trying to drink his water before it was his turn to go through screening. Now that is a very dangerous sign. I would think that the fact that he was willing to down the whole bottle before stepping up to the plate would be an assurance that it was indeed water, not explosives in his water bottle . . . but no. TSA grabbed the bottle and threw it away.Another dangerous passenger followed me through pat down. She was 5’3″ tall, (fifty years ago, probably 5’5″) with that charming white-wavy-short-hairdo that has been the fashion among elderly women since the 50′s.The chattering teenaged girls ahead of me had complacently shed their shirts and walked through security in their camisoles.Other than us, the water-drinker, the great grandmother, and me, the grandmother, there didn’t seem to be other security threats, and we went safely on our journey.
hadvisor - April 27, 2010 at 10:53 am
Sometimes, one just has to wonder at the sense of it all. When I was on my way to a conference a year ago, I cleared the body scanner and headed down the line to collect my possessions. A male security officer pulled me aside and instructed me to wait in a plexiglass booth until another officer arrived. He gave me no indication of why I had been pulled aside, and would not answer a related question when asked. I waited for 15 minutes, in full view of everyone else who went through screening (receiving all manner of suspicious looks, though I was dressed professionally and am of generally conservative appearance), wondering what was the matter. When the second officer, a woman, arrived, she instructed me to hold out one of my arms and looked suspiciously at the almost skin-tight gauntlet and sleeve I wear for lymphedema. She ran a gloved hand over it, asked what it was, and then made quite a show of running an alcohol-soaked cotton ball over the elastic bands at my shoulder and wrist and across my knuckles. Nearly a half-hour of drama over a medical garment. Needless to say, when I returned home I waited to put on my gauntlet and sleeve until after I had gone through airport security. They had no problem letting it go through in my purse.
facultydiva - April 27, 2010 at 12:23 pm
I just flew last week and the body scanner cannot even deal with a tissue in your pocket!