A Better Way to Screen Airport Passengers, With Psychology

By Coral J. Dando, University of Wolverhampton | November 24, 2014 9:35 am

airport security

This article was originally published on The Conversation.

International airports are a busy place to be. Nearly 140,000 passengers pass through New York’s JFK Airport every day. The internal security of the country depends on effective airport checks.

All departing passengers pass through a series of security procedures before embarking their plane. One such procedure is a short, scripted interview when security personnel must make decisions about passenger risk by looking for behavioral indicators of deception.

These are referred to as “suspicious signs”: signs of nervousness, aggression and an unusual interest in security procedures, for example. However, this approach has never been empirically validated and its continued use is criticized for being based on outdated, unreliable perceptions of how people behave when being deceptive.

Despite these concerns, the suspicious signs approach continues to dominate security screening: the US government spends $200 million yearly on behavior-detection officers, who are tasked with spotting suspicious signs. This is a waste of money.

Detecting Lies

Most of us answer questions truthfully because we have no reason to do otherwise. However, for those with malicious intent, truth is not an option if they don’t want to be exposed. Despite a lot of research devoted to understanding and detecting deception, there isn’t a reliable method available to us.

Tightly controlled lab studies show that deception-detection performance is only marginally better than chance. This means in normal situations, such as airports, where there are a lot of distractions and the number of deceivers is far fewer than truth-tellers, detection performance can only get worse.

One can tell when one’s children or spouse are lying because we know what they are like when telling the truth. With strangers it is almost impossible. But there are many companies selling suspicious signs methods – and their sales pitch perpetuates the myth. Spotting behaviors from a distance is cheap and easy to implement. So authorities like suspicious signs approaches, because they save money and give the appearance of protecting the public.

Despite disappointing results and challenges to its use, such methods based on studies done in labs are still in use. However, recently, our research has challenged convention, moving out of the lab into the real world: with security agents at many international airports.

Conversational Cues

We compared the effectiveness of a suspicious signs approach to a new method, called the Controlled Cognitive Engagement (CCE). CCE is a conversation comprising of a number of cognitive questioning techniques. It is designed to be demanding for liars, but straightforward for truth-tellers.

Our research was conducted during routine security screening, with “real” passengers departing on flights at international airports. CCE was developed using the latest research which shows that many aspects of verbal exchanges can reliably discriminate deceivers from truth-tellers. CCE offers an alternative approach that focuses, not on how deceivers behave, but on the nature of the verbal exchange between passengers and security staff.

Real-World Testing

First we trained 97 security officers to use CCE. Once trained, these officers began to screen real passengers using CCE, working alongside colleagues who were using the suspicious signs method. All security agents were fitted with discreet microphones to record screening interviews.

Across the duration of the study, 204 fake passengers, embedded within the normal traveling passenger population, passed through both the CCE and suspicious signs screening procedures. One week before participation, mock passengers received a valid ticket, an itinerary of flights, a deceptive cover story – and a ticketing record was created on the airline electronic database.

The “real” passengers boned up on their stories to be more convincing and arrived at the airport dressed for travel with their passports and their suitcases. To security staff, they appeared completely legitimate. These people – who were from a wide cross-section of nationalities and ranged from 18 to 27 years of age, received £60 ($94) each with the promise of another £60 if they successfully passed through the security procedure.

Our results were astonishing. CCE agents identified 24 times more mock passengers (66%) than suspicious signs agents (3%), providing the highest levels to date of deception detection in a realistic setting where the known base rate of deceptive individuals is low.

Get ‘Em Talking

We thought the CCE method would make it easier to detect deception because it is designed to get the passenger talking – which in turn elicits more passenger information and reduces the amount of time interviewing officers spend talking, allowing them more time to listen and watch passengers.

Statistical analysis of the digital recordings supported this. Passengers interviewed using CCE methods spoke more than three times as many words, and provided almost 15 times more information about themselves than those screened using suspicious signs – and CCE personnel spoke almost 75% less than suspicious signs personnel.

Because CCE is unpredictable, deceivers could not simply stick to a lie script, and tests of expected knowledge based on information provided by passengers empowered security staff to quickly satisfy themselves as to the veracity of passenger accounts.

Our research shows that current screening methods are not fit for purpose. Methods that use verbal content, such as CCE, presents a much better alternative. Investment in suspicious signs approaches is money wasted.

The Conversation

Image by / Shutterstock

CATEGORIZED UNDER: Mind & Brain, Top Posts
  • Larry S

    Seems to have a great deal of potential and to be a vast improvement in security screenings technology.
    Wondering if passengers are told they are being screened at the beginning or not? Or if they somehow are informed that a screening is to in progress.
    Some people are not amenable to feigned interest in their affairs and privacy but will fully cooperate with a stated intention to screen.

  • nitemarejim

    Why is this “brand new”??

    Isn’t this what El Al already does???

  • http://dev.blogs.discovermagazine.com Sally Bell

    Sounds like he is trying to sell his own program. Marketers stack the deck. Call me cynical, but…

  • philiphansten

    Actually, this makes a lot of sense. I experienced this method at Schiphol Airport a few years ago. The agent asked why I was going to Turkey. I told him to give a lecture. He asked on what topic. I told him “pharmacology.” Then he asked what area of pharmacology. I told him “drug interactions.” Then he asked what type of drug interactions… etc. etc. It took only about a minute, but it would have been very difficult to answer all of his questions if I had not been telling the truth. He used my answers to drill down to specifics. He didn’t have to know about pharmacology, but just look to see if I could answer the questions promptly and with confidence.

  • T. Matson

    The whole point of “terrorists” screenings is pretty ironic…..9’11 Basically our government knows/knew Saudi Arabia was behind it, in on it with our government….the day before 9’11 the DOD announced it had “lost” 2.3 trillion……and guess what they never found it……And after we Americans were attacked…we were suddenly thought of as “threats” to the government….How nice…….And since I post the basic “facts” I am considered a possible lone “wolf”….FBI go and look in the Mirror your the problem….ditto for Homeland Anti-Security…Go arrest Bush and the Saudi non-royal family……..


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!


See More

Collapse bottom bar