Baggage Screeners Detect Danger Better with More Danger to Detect

Transportation security officers become better at detecting threatening items when they appear more frequently. Karen Hopkin 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!

Practice makes perfect. And that may be especially true for the security agents who screen your luggage—because a new study finds that transportation security officers become better at detecting threatening items when they appear more frequently.

Remaining on the lookout for hidden weapons can be mentally exhausting, particularly when the items in question are so rarely seen. That fatigue could translate into missing something deadly when it finally does show up.

So researchers put some newly trained security officers to the test. They asked the agents to eyeball the x-rays of five sets of bags and call out if they saw any guns, knives or bombs.


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.


In the first three sets and in the last one the banned objects were few and far between. But the fourth set was a jackpot.

Turned out that the agents were better at spotting danger when there was more danger to spot. And this eagle-eye acuity carried over to when the threat level once again dropped. The findings can be seen in the Journal of Vision. [Jeremy M. Wolfe et al., Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners: Trained observers miss rare targets, too

The results suggest that airport security might be beefed up by letting agents spot a simulated stockpile of arms—before they scan for the rare real things.

—Karen Hopkin

[The above text is a 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