IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v28y2008i4p1125-1133.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Exploratory Risk Perception Study of Attitudes Toward Homeland Security Systems

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas F. Sanquist
  • Heidi Mahy
  • Frederic Morris

Abstract

Understanding the issues surrounding public acceptance of homeland security systems is important for balancing security needs and potential civil liberties infringements. A psychometric survey was used in an exploratory study of attitudes regarding homeland security systems. Psychometric rating data were obtained from 182 respondents on psychological attributes associated with 12 distinct types of homeland security systems. An inverse relationship was observed for the overall rating attributes of acceptability and risk of civil liberties infringement. Principal components analysis (PCA) yielded a two‐factor solution with the rating scale loading pattern suggesting factors of perceived effectiveness and perceived intrusiveness. These factors also showed an inverse relationship. The 12 different homeland security systems showed significantly different scores on the rating scales and PCA factors. Of the 12 systems studied, airport screening, canine detectors, and radiation monitoring at borders were found to be the most acceptable, while email monitoring, data mining, and global positioning satellite (GPS) tracking were found to be least acceptable. Students rated several systems as more effective than professionals, but the overall pattern of results for both types of subjects was similar. The data suggest that risk perception research and the psychometric paradigm are useful approaches for quantifying attitudes regarding homeland security systems and policies and can be used to anticipate potentially significant public acceptance issues.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas F. Sanquist & Heidi Mahy & Frederic Morris, 2008. "An Exploratory Risk Perception Study of Attitudes Toward Homeland Security Systems," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(4), pages 1125-1133, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:1125-1133
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01069.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01069.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01069.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Slovic, 1993. "Perceived Risk, Trust, and Democracy," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 675-682, December.
    2. Darren W. Davis & Brian D. Silver, 2004. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 48(1), pages 28-46, January.
    3. Arnold Barnett, 2004. "CAPPS II: The Foundation of Aviation Security?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(4), pages 909-916, August.
    4. Lee S. Strickland & Laura E. Hunt, 2005. "Technology, security, and individual privacy: New tools, new threats, and new public perceptions," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 56(3), pages 221-234, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sudeep Bhatia, 2019. "Predicting Risk Perception: New Insights from Data Science," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(8), pages 3800-3823, August.
    2. Irina A. Iles & Michael J. Egnoto & Brooke Fisher Liu & Gary Ackerman & Holly Roberts & Daniel Smith, 2017. "Understanding the Adoption Process of National Security Technology: An Integration of Diffusion of Innovations and Volitional Behavior Theories," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(11), pages 2246-2259, November.
    3. Robin L. Dillon & Genevieve Lester & Richard S. John & Catherine H. Tinsley, 2012. "Differentiating Conflicts in Beliefs Versus Value Tradeoffs in the Domestic Intelligence Policy Debate," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 713-728, April.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kenneth D. Nguyen & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "Valuing Equal Protection in Aviation Security Screening," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(12), pages 2405-2419, December.
    2. Joseph A Hamm & Corwin Smidt & Roger C Mayer, 2019. "Understanding the psychological nature and mechanisms of political trust," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Ann Bostrom & Ragnar E. Löfstedt, 2003. "Communicating Risk: Wireless and Hardwired," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(2), pages 241-248, April.
    4. April K. Clark & Michael Clark & Marie A. Eisenstein, 2014. "Stability and Change," SAGE Open, , vol. 4(1), pages 21582440145, March.
    5. Johanna Pfeiffer & Andreas Gabriel & Markus Gandorfer, 2021. "Understanding the public attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies: a nationwide survey in Germany," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(1), pages 107-128, February.
    6. Saad, Mohsen & Samet, Anis, 2020. "Collectivism and commonality in liquidity," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 116(C), pages 137-162.
    7. Nahui Zhen & Jon Barnett & Michael Webber, 2020. "Is Trust Always a Precondition for Effective Water Resource Management?," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 34(4), pages 1423-1436, March.
    8. Wouter Poortinga & Nick F. Pidgeon, 2003. "Exploring the Dimensionality of Trust in Risk Regulation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 23(5), pages 961-972, October.
    9. Sambuddha Ghatak & Aaron Gold & Brandon C. Prins, 2019. "Domestic Terrorism in Democratic States: Understanding and Addressing Minority Grievances," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 63(2), pages 439-467, February.
    10. Kazuya Nakayachi & George Cvetkovich, 2010. "Public Trust in Government Concerning Tobacco Control in Japan," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 143-152, January.
    11. Rob Goble, 2021. "Through a Glass Darkly: How Natural Science and Technical Communities Looked at Social Science Advances in Understanding Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 414-428, March.
    12. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    13. Hoti, Ferdiana & Perko, Tanja & Thijssen, Peter & Renn, Ortwin, 2021. "Who is willing to participate? Examining public participation intention concerning decommissioning of nuclear power plants in Belgium," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    14. Henning Finseraas & Ola Listhaug, 2013. "It can happen here: the impact of the Mumbai terror attacks on public opinion in Western Europe," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 213-228, July.
    15. Youngcheoul Kang & Nakbum Choi & Seoyong Kim, 2021. "Searching for New Model of Digital Informatics for Human–Computer Interaction: Testing the Institution-Based Technology Acceptance Model (ITAM)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(11), pages 1-36, May.
    16. John D. Graham & John A. Rupp & Olga Schenk, 2015. "Unconventional Gas Development in the USA: Exploring the Risk Perception Issues," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(10), pages 1770-1788, October.
    17. Susan Mello & Robert C. Hornik, 2016. "Media Coverage of Pediatric Environmental Health Risks and its Effects on Mothers’ Protective Behaviors," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(3), pages 605-622, March.
    18. Lee, You-Kyung, 2020. "Sustainability of nuclear energy in Korea: From the users’ perspective," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    19. Fernanda Bethlem Tigre & Paulo Lopes Henriques & Carla Curado, 2022. "Building trustworthiness: Leadership self-portraits," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 56(6), pages 3971-3991, December.
    20. Justin Baker & W. Douglass Shaw & Mary Riddel & Richard T. Woodward, 2009. "Changes in subjective risks of hurricanes as time passes: analysis of a sample of Katrina evacuees," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 59-74, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:28:y:2008:i:4:p:1125-1133. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.