Passenger Profiling, Imperfect Screening, and Airport Security

William Penn University, Filadelfia, Pennsylvania, United States
American Economic Review (Impact Factor: 2.69). 05/2005; 95(2):127-131. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.651881
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT This paper uses a natural experiment approach to identify the effects of an exogenouschange in future pension benefits on workers’ training participation. We use uniquematched survey and administrative data for male employees in the Dutch public sectorwho were born in 1949 or 1950. Only the latter were subject to a major pension reformthat diminished their pension rights. We find that this exogenous shock to pension rightspostpones expected retirement and increases participation in training courses amongolder employees, although exclusively for those employed in large organizations.

Download full-text


Available from: Petra E. Todd, Jul 06, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Airport security measures can be grouped into two types; standardized screening techniques, which all passengers must undergo (e.g., baggage X-rays, metal detecting scans); and elevated-risk screening (including pat-downs and strip searches) for which only a sub-set of passengers are selected. In the current study, an undergraduate sample (n = 636) was surveyed regarding the professionalism of security screening staff, as well as perceived safety, threat to dignity, and enplanement intentions, following standard and elevated-risk screening measures. Consistent with our hypotheses, perceived professionalism and safety were positively correlated with enplanement intentions, and dignity threat was negatively associated with perceived safety. As the perceived safety from the use of a security measure decreased, enplanement intentions also decreased. Notably, when a screening measure is perceived as having negative consequences (e.g., threatening one's sense of dignity) the safety of the measure is personally invalidated.
    Journal of Air Transport Management 05/2014; 37:60–68. DOI:10.1016/j.jairtraman.2014.02.004 · 0.91 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article explores citizens' views on racial profiling at airports. A recent Gallup poll allowed for analyses of the perception of Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites concerning whether they felt racial profiling at airports was widespread and/or justified. Multivariate analyses revealed that Blacks were more likely than Whites to believe profiling at airports was widespread. There were, however, no differences between the opinions of Whites and Hispanics on the extent of profiling in airports. Racial and ethnic minorities were less likely than Whites to believe that profiling at airports was justified. The implications of the results are discussed.
    Criminal Justice Policy Review 01/2009; 20(3):344-358. DOI:10.1177/0887403408327384
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This article examines the generality of citizens' views concerning racial profiling across several contexts. More specifically, the research investigated whether citizens' perceptions regarding the widespread nature of racial profiling and their belief whether this profiling is justified converged when considering the practice in diverse settings, such as during traffic stops, in retail establishments, and at airports. Using data from a nationally representative poll with an oversample of Blacks and Hispanics, the results of the structural equation model analysis supported the supposition that perceptions regarding racial profiling across contexts form one latent construct. The perceptions of airport, traffic stop, and consumer racial profiling—in the context of widespread nature and justification—form two general latent measures. These perceptions differ based on race, age, sex, and income.
    Criminal Justice and Behavior 09/2008; 35(12):1527-1541. DOI:10.1177/0093854808325214 · 1.71 Impact Factor