Airport Screeners: Beware Intentional Contraband

Finding an innocuous banned object may lead searchers to be lax in the rest of their search for more dangerous items. Cynthia Graber reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Shhh, keep this podcast a secret. Because new research points to a possible blind spot in airport security screening: it may be easier to sneak something dangerous past security–a box cutter, for example–by also including an obvious and innocuous banned object, like a water bottle, into the mix as a distraction.

Scientists recruited college students to find targets on a computer display. Their task: search for lines that formed a T amidst other non-T lines in 10 different experiments. Sometimes the Ts were easy to find, sometimes they were more hidden. When the easy and tough ones appeared with equal frequency, the students found both on the same screen.

When the easy T’s appeared two to three times more frequently, the students were more likely to miss the tough ones. But when the students were given extra time, lessening the pressure, they were more able to find both targets almost as quickly.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The study [Mathias Fleck et al., Journal of Experimental Psychology, http://bit.ly/djORI2] suggests that actual professional screeners need to be just as vigilant in their attention after finding a first piece of contraband in a given bag. And keeping their stress levels as low as possible should help their performance.

—Cynthia Graber

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe