This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). To view a copy of this license, visit
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
RESEARCH PAPER 127
The influence of airport security procedures
on the intention to re-travel
Saad Al-Saad 1*, Abdelkader Ababneh 2 and Mohammad M. Alazaizeh 3
Received: 06/12/2018 Accepted: 10/04/2019
1 Associate Professor, Department of Travel and Tourism, Yarmouk University, Irbid 21163, Jordan
Tel. (+962) 2 7211111 Ex. 2267. Mobile: (+962) 791537701, Email: [email protected]
2 Associate Professor, Department of Travel and Tourism, Yarmouk University, Irbid 21163, Jordan
Tel. (+962) 2 7211111 Ex. 2287. Mobile: (+962) 776424670, Email: [email protected]
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Tourism Management, The University of Jordan, Aqaba 77110, Jordan,
Tel. (+962) 3 2090450 Ex. 35133. Mobile: (+962) 791453155, Email: [email protected]
* Corresponding author
Coordinating editor: Martina González-Gallarza Granizo
Abstract
The purpose of this research is to examine empirically the relationships between, on the one side,
awareness, feeling of comfort, of Jordanian international travellers towards airport security
procedures, and on the other, their intention to re-travel. Three levels of airport security procedures
were examined: standard, elevated and racial profiling/human treatment independently in one single
model. A quantitative survey based on a convenience sample was conducted in Jordan.
Confirmatory factor analysis and multiple regression analysis have been conducted to test the
research hypotheses. The findings revealed that travellers’ awareness and feeling of comfort toward
standard and elevated procedures positively influence their intention to re-travel. Whenever the
awareness and feeling of comfort decreased, travellers intend to re-travel less through airports. It
was also found that travellers’ awareness and feeling of comfort toward racial profiling do not
influence their intention to re-travel. Suggested recommendations and policy implications for airport
security procedures and airports administrations are discussed.
Keywords: Terrorism, Airport Security, Air Passengers, Intention to Re-travel, Jordan.
Citation: Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) The influence of airport security
procedures on the intention to re-travel. European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
Introduction
Tourism is the most susceptible industry to
numerous terrorism threats and other criminal
acts. The number of total terrorist incidents in
the world has been doubled in the last ten
years from 4805 in 2008 to 10900 in 2017
(Global Terrorism Database, 2018). Tourism
has suffered from frequent terrorist’s attacks
(e.g., attacks on the World Trade Center and
the Pentagon 2001), wars (e.g., Iraq 2003), and
The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
128
political instability (e.g., Tunisia, Syria, Iraq,
Yemen, Libya and Bahrain), which adversely
impacted tourism performance, and contributed
to some uncertainty, some hesitation, and the
increase of doubtful perception of different
destinations (Al-Saad & Ababneh, 2017).
According to the 2016 Global Terrorism Index,
the contribution of the tourism industry to Gross
Domestic Product (GDP) is twice as large in a
county that has not suffered recently from
terrorist attacks (Institute for Economics and
Peace, 2016). Due to the perseverance and
diversity in the implementation of the terrorist
attacks, air transportation system has
increasingly become more vulnerable for
terrorist attacks than other systems, however,
airport security must also adapt in line to
protect the aviation industry and increase air
passengers’ safety. Consequently, demand for
high-level security standards over the past two
decades has witnessed a noticeable increase.
In response to such terrorist attacks, many
countries modified their regulations and
tightened significantly airport security
procedures. Routinely, all passengers and flight
crews are subject to standardized security
procedures, which include baggage X-ray,
body X-ray, metal detector scan, and passport
control. In the wake of 11 September 2001
attacks, security procedures have become
much stricter all over the world. For instance,
on 19 November 2001, the United States
Congress enacted the Aviation and
Transportation Security Act (ATSA), which
mandated several important changes in civil
aviation security procedures (Blalock et al.
2007). Such changes and amendments came
as a response to high elevated risks. O’Malley
(2006) indicated that security procedures have
become more commonplace when there are
elevated risks or suspicious behaviours like
perspiration or fidgeting. They might include
bodily pat-downs, bag searches and explosive
trace detection scans (as cited in AlardsTomalin, 2014), as well as sniffing passengers
by dogs and inspecting the contents of their
laptops and cameras.
In some suspicious cases, passengers are
singled out based on name, nationality, race,
religion, ethnicity or physical appearance and
subject them to an extreme vetting process and
very long interrogation. After the appearance of
the Islamic State of Syria and Iraq (ISIS) and its
continuous terrorist attacks on different places
around the world, some countries started to
consider racial profiling as part of the
counterterrorism plans. For example, on 27
July 2017, Executive Order 13769, titled
‘Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist
Entry into the United States’, has been signed
to deny visitors from 6 Muslim countries from
entering the United States for 120 days (The
New York Times, 2017). Halter (2002) found
that Arab Americans, people of Middle Eastern
descent, and Muslims are being targeted for
more tightened security measures at airports.
Furthermore, according to a USA Today-Gallup
Poll (2006), Americans favour more tightened
security measures with Muslims. Nearly more
than one third, 31%, expressed that they would
feel nervous if they see a Muslim flying on the
same flight as themselves (Saad, 2006).
The relationship between airport security and
travel and tourism industry is considered
recently one of the most important areas for
research. “Concerns for safety and security
remain an important issue for the travel and
tourism industry” is one of the ten important
world tourism issues for 2018 (Edgell, 2018).
Although airport security procedures and racial
profiling enhanced the safety of passengers
worldwide, they have made passengers feel
uncomfortable, especially those suspected or
targeted based on a stereotype on their
ethnicity or race. Hasisi et al. (2012) found that
Arab Israelis hold a significantly negative
attitude towards the treatment of the security
staff they perceived, while Jewish Israeli hold a
positive one. Only 61.2% of Arab passengers
reported that the security inspectors treated
them like any other passenger compared with
90.3% among Jewish passengers. Hernandez
(2007) has also found that Afro-Americans and
Hispanics are more likely selected for security
checks than whites. Middle Easterners, on the
other hand, are often felt less likely to be
selected. Blackwood et al. (2013) argued that
such treatment can raise a painful question
about how they are seen and positioned by
other passengers. These findings indicate that
indignity incurred during security procedures by
Arab passengers may made them feel
uncomfortable, which subsequently had a
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
129
negative impact on their return intention,
particularly if their principal purpose of travel is
tourism.
Although different studies have been
conducted in different countries of the world to
examine tourists’ perception of security and
associated experience at airports (Arana &
Leon, 2008), investigating perceptions toward
airport security and its influences on the
behavioural intention to re-travel in the Middle
East suffers from a limited academic studies
and lack of careful attention. The national
aviation and airports authorities have put in
place different security measures designed to
protect both airport terminals and travellers
from any terrorist incidents (Blalock et al. 2007,
Alards-Tomalin et al. 2014). However, there is
a paucity of perception studies on the security
process at the national airports. There is a
growing interest of published research on
tourism in the Middle East especially with
reference to tourism in conflict areas (Buda,
2016). Most of literature on tourism in the
Middle East focus on issues such as political
instability and their negative impacts (Buda,
2016), the influence of terrorist incidents on the
tourism activities and calling for developing
security measures with no prior research
attention paid to safety at airports and how
travellers perceive these security procedures
regarding air travel. In addition, some prior
researches conducted about security and
safety at airports focused on the awareness,
threat to dignity, and enplanement intentions
(Alards-Tomalin et al. 2014; Turtugulov, 2009)
but no one included all these variables
(awareness, feeling of comfort and intention to
re-travel) in one research. Therefore, this
research has come up with new knowledge in
this field of study to fill the gap on literature by
understanding the perceptions of Jordanian
international travellers toward airport security
procedures (whether standard, elevated or
racial profiling) and how that influence their
intention to re-travel. In addition, this research
attempts to examine the differences of
international travellers, according to their sex,
marital status, age, educational level,
employment status, household income,
frequency of travel, and length of airport
security check.
Literature Review
The concepts of security and safety have been
defined in numerous ways in the literature.
Generally, the word ‘security’ means freedom
from danger, risk, doubt, or threat (Boholm,
Möller, & Hansson, 2016; Wilks, 2006).
Sadatsafavi et al. (2019) defined security as a
protection from terrorism, piracy and/or
organised crime. The word safety is defined in
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary
(2007) as the state of being safe and protected
from danger and harm. Within the realm of
tourism, security and safety encompass the
protection of people physically and the image
of the environment of a tourist destination
(Cadavez, 2016; Tarlow, 2009; Costea,
Hapenciuc & Stanciu, 2017).
Perceived feeling of comfort towards
destination’s security in general and airports is
a significant factor influencing the choice of a
destination (Peters & Papathanassis, 2019; Chi
& Qu, 2008; Quintal & Polczynski, 2010).
Several studies have suggested different
factors that have an important influence on the
perceived feeling of comfort toward a
destination and airports. Tourist based
attributes such as visitor’s previous experience,
exposure to previous crime incident, and
demographic characteristics are playing a
relatively important role in perceptions of risks
(Adeloye & Brown, 2018; Carballo, León &
Carballo, 2017; Garg, 2015; Batra, 2008;
George, 2003). For instance, it was found that
variables such as nationality, gender, age have
major influence on the international tourists’
perceptions and concern for safety, security
and risks (Garg, 2015; Batra, 2008).
Lack of awareness about security issues is
considered one of the most important factors
leading to security incidents (Nilsen,
Albrechtsen & Nyheim, 2018; Furnell, 2007). In
many cases, tourists may have not taken part
in any tourism activities or even return to a
tourist destination if they feel unsafe (Adeloye
& Brown, 2018; George, 2003). In a research
conducted to investigate the perceptions of
American and European travellers towards the
security and safety in air travel, the findings
revealed that respondents are aware of the
importance of safety and security in air travel.
70% of respondents strongly agreed that
The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
130
airport security procedures are important today
because of previous terrorist attacks. The
majority of Americans (74%) and Europeans
(76%) agreed that introducing improved
screening technology would ease concerns
over safety, however, some of them (55%)
stated that this introduction would increase wait
time at checkpoints and cause possible delays
(Essays, UK, 2015).
Nevertheless, in a quantitative based study
looking at Malaysian nationality and
passengers with non-Malaysian nationality
awareness and perception on airport safety
and security measures and procedures,
Turtugulov (2009) found that perception of
Malaysian passengers regarding airport safety
and security measures and procedures is
higher than non-Malaysian. The study found
that factors of age group, ethnicity and previous
experience played an important role. Reisinger
and Mavodno (2005) concluded that travellers
from countries such as the USA, Australia and
Hong Kong, were likely to perceive more
international travel associated risk and treats.
Thus, as part of national tourism development
strategy, countries such as Germany and
Australia have developed national visitor
programs aiming at improving visitor safety
awareness (Destination NSW, 2016).
Hypotheses Development
As mentioned earlier, several studies have
been published on the context of security and
safety at airports. Most of the researchers
focus on safety incidents impacts, while little
attention has been given to understand
travellers’ awareness and perceived feeling of
comfort toward airport security. In terms of
awareness toward airport security procedures,
a study conducted after the events of
September 11, 2001; American and British
travellers showed that they are concerned with
and aware of airport security procedures and
issues, although they indicated that they are
little worried about air travel (FrederickRecascino et al. 2003). However, to date, the
relationships between the awareness of
international travellers towards airport security
procedures and their intention to re-travel is still
unexamined in the literature. Therefore, the
present research is an attempt to fill the gap in
knowledge about how awareness might

awareness towards airport security procedures
positively influence travellers’ intention to retravel (H1). Secondly, it hypothesized that
awareness toward standard airport security
procedures positively influence travellers’
intention to re-travel (H1a). Thirdly, it
hypothesized, that awareness toward elevated
airport security procedures positively influence
travellers’ intention to re-travel (H1b). Lastly, it
hypothesized that awareness toward racial
profiling airport security procedures positively
influence travellers’ intention to re-travel (H1c).
However, in tourism research different factors
were identified as drivers of intention to retravel to a specific destination (Kozak, 2001).
Those factors are for example quality of service
(Chen, 2008), tourism operator performance
(Oh, 1999) consumer’s needs (Chen &
Paliwoda, 2004) perceived risk (Quintal &
Polczynski, 2010) and personal values (Ekinci
& Chen, 2001).
Beck et al. (2017) have recently examined the
perceptions of how safe airline travel is and the
respondents’ level of concern over privacy and
trust of authorities. They found that people who
trust authorities are more likely to travel
internationally, while those with low feelings of
safety are inclined not to travel. Also, Barros
and Assaf (2012) found that different
destination-based attributes such overall
quality; reputation and safety have a positive
impact on the returning intention. The security
at airports has a major impact on the intention
to return of travellers. The impact of the airport
security procedures and associated staff on
passengers while travelling was shown to be
crucial variable of airport performance and
noteworthy topic for passengers’ satisfaction.
The inconvenience of security procedures
reduces passenger demand for air travel. In a
study conducted by Blalock et al. (2007) about
the impact of post 9/11 airport security
measures on the demand for air travel in the
United States, it was found that tightened
airport security, in response to 9/11 attacks,
had the unintended consequence of reducing
the convenience of air travel, which in turn
caused a decline in the demand for air travel.
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
131
Security screening reduced passenger volume
by about 5% on all flights, and by about 8% on
flights departing from the nation’s fifty busiest
airports which comprise more than 80% of the
total passenger volume in the U.S.
Moreover, a few researchers in the field of
tourism argue that airport security procedures
have an important impact on the intention to retravel. However, travellers correlate some
disrespect and humiliation practices by security
personnel at airports. In their study, AlardsTomalin et al. (2014) examined the perceptions
of leisure travellers attending a Canadian
university towards the influence of airport
security measures on enplanement intentions.
Based on their findings, in which the perceived
dignity threat for both standard and elevated
security procedures exhibit significant negative
relationships with intentions to use commercial
air carriers in the future, we hypothesized that
travellers’ feeling of comfort toward airport
security procedures positively influence their
intention to re-travel (H2). Secondly, we
hypothesized that travellers’ feeling of comfort
toward standard airport security procedures
positively influence their intention to re-travel
(H2a). Thirdly, we hypothesized that travellers’
feeling of comfort toward elevated airport
security procedures positively influence their
intention to re-travel (H2b). On the other hand,
racial profiling appears to be more
uncomfortable airport security procedures. For
instance, the analysis made by Blackwood et
al. (2013) regarding Scottish Muslims
concerning their encounters at airports showed
that airports were considered as places of
humiliation, distress and, in some cases fear.
Based on this finding, we hypothesized that
travellers’ feeling of comfort toward racial
profiling airport security procedures positively
influence their intention to re-travel (H2c).
Methodology
Quantitative research method was used to
understand the Jordanian international
travellers’ awareness and feeling of comfort
towards airport security procedures (standard,
elevated and racial profiling/human treatment)
and how they influence their intention to retravel. A sample of Jordanian travellers were
asked to complete a self-administrated
questionnaire inquiring about their awareness
and feeling of comfort towards the airport
security procedures (standard, elevated, and
racial profiling/human treatment), and their
intention to re-travel. The responses were
collected and analysed to understand how
these perceptions may influence their intention
to re-travel. Originally, the questionnaire was
developed in English, and then translated into
the national language of the country (Arabic) by
a translation specialist.
Data Collection
Individuals over the age of 18 years and who
have travelled in at least one international flight
were the target population. Using convenience
sampling technique, a total number of 400
questionnaires were delivered and 320 usable
cases were obtained, resulting in a response
rate of 80%.
The data collection for this research included
primary and secondary sources of data. The
research began with collecting secondary
information from different written and published
sources, such as: books, journals, official
documents, and online resources. The primary
data were collected by asking Jordanians in
key public areas to complete a selfadministrated questionnaire that included two
parts with 48 items. The first part was designed
to measure how respondents’ awareness and
feeling of comfort towards airport security
procedures influence their intention to re-travel,
while the second was to find out the sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
such as sex, marital status, age, level of
education, employment status, income, travel
frequency, airport location and time length of
security check.
Measurement scales
Gathering information on targeted variables is
maximized by using six or seven response
categories, allowing for greater differentiation in
responses (Willits, Theodori, and Luloff, 2016).
Although there has been noticeable scientific
debate for decades over reliabilities of scales
with two, three, five, seven, and nine response
categories, many researchers argued that
reliability of results is maximized by using
seven-point scales (Cohen, Manion, and
Morrison, 2000; Finstad, 2010).
The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
132
In addition to some personal information
questions, the questionnaire included another
three questions. The first question aimed to
understand the travellers’ level of awareness
toward different types of airport security
procedures (standard, elevated, and racial
profiling/human treatment). By using 7-point
Likert scaled question ranged from 1 (Not at all
important) to 7 (Extremely important),
respondents were asked to rate the degree of
importance of different airport security
procedures (standard, elevated, and racial
profiling/human treatment). The second
question of the questionnaire aimed to
measure travellers’ feeling of comfort toward
the same airport security procedures.
Respondents were asked to indicate to what
extent they feel comfort with the airport security
procedures. Respondents evaluated each
security procedure on a 7-point Likert scaled
questions ranging from 1 (very uncomfortable)
to 7 (very comfortable). Questionnaire items for
these two questions were adapted from AlardsTomalin (2014), Turtugulov (2009), Reisig et al.
(2007), Colquitt (2001), Hasisi et al. (2012),
Blackwood (2015), Johnson, et al. (2011), and
Tyler and Wakslak (2004).
The third question included a group of
statements to measure respondent’s intention
to re-travel again after experiencing the airport
security procedures. Item responses were
obtained on a 7-point Likert scale, responses
ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly
agree), respondents were asked to rate how
much they agree with these statements.
Questionnaire items for this question were
adapted from Cole and Chancellor (2009),
Prosser (1998), Huang and Hsu (2009), Shonk
(2006), and Goeldner and Ritchie (2012). After
conducting a Pilot Test with 30 passengers
who had experience in international air travel,
including business, visiting friends or relatives
(VFR), other personal business, and pleasure,
some of the questionnaire items were modified
to be clearer and culturally valid.
Data analysis
The approach adopted in the current research
included two types of data analysis:
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Multiple
Regression Analysis. A confirmatory factor
analysis (CFA) was used to analyse the
statistical reliability and validity of the
measurement models using EQS 6.1. Multiple
Regression Analysis (MRA) was used to
understand how awareness and feeling of
comfort towards airport security procedures
may influence travellers’ intention to re-travel,
and then conclude in the research hypotheses.
The suggested model was then tested for
goodness of fit (GOF).
Using IBM Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences (SPSS) version 20.0, statistical
analyses were conducted to test the research
hypotheses, which were developed based on
the planned research framework. Data were
scanned and examined for outliers, missing
values, and normality issues that could
influence the results. 51 cases were identified
and removed from the analysis as outliers.
These outliers were removed because the data
distribution was not normal. Maximum
Likelihood Imputation with the Expectation
maximization (EM) algorithm was used to
impute missing values (Tabchnick & Fidell,
2007).
Results
The quantitative findings of this research
derived from questionnaire-based surveys
distributed to Jordanian international travellers.
The questionnaire allowed participants to
express their viewpoints and perceptions of
airport security procedures, and how they
influence participants’ intention to re-travel.
Furthermore, the data was correlated and
analysed based on several variables including
sex, marital status, age, education level,
employment status, household income,
travelling frequency, airport location, duration of
airport security check, and travel purpose.
Using Cronbach’s alpha, the total reliability for
the summated scales was found to be above
0.85 (Awareness, 0.823; Feeling of comfort,
0.837; Intention to re-travel, 0.947) which was
considered reliable (Churchill, 1979).
Descriptive Analysis
Firstly, a straightforward descriptive analysis
was conducted on the personal information
variables. As shown in Table 1, of the 269
surveys completed by the travellers, the largest
group of respondents (62.5%) were males.
Regarding the age and marital status education
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
133
of the sampled respondents, more than threequarters of them (79.9%) were between the
ages of 18-39, with 56.5% being married. This
came in line with the General Population and
Housing Census conducted by the Jordan’s
Department of Statistics. It found that Jordan is
a young society (population age 15-64 years
62.0%) in 2017 (Department of Statistics,
2017). For educational attainment, the largest
proportion of the sample (60.2%) had
undergraduate degree. More than half of the
respondents (67.3%) were employed, with
monthly income less than JOD 1000 (68.1%).
As for the number of times they have travelled
by air for the last five years, the results showed
that approximately two thirds of the
respondents (60.9%) have travelled more than
three times, and 60.6% of the respondent
showed that time to complete airport security
check was reasonable. Concerning travel
purpose, 42.8% of the respondents have
travelled for business, 25.7% for visiting family
and friends, 15.2% for personal business, and
16.4% for pleasure. In terms of the location
(continent) of airports which reflect
respondents’ perspectives toward airport
security procedures, most of the respondents
travelled through airports located in Asia
(45.0%), followed by Europe (37.5%).
As shown in Table 2 and 3, respondents
indicated that standard procedures are very
important (M=5.88, SD=1.22), and they feel
comfort with them (M= 5.38, SD= 1.50), while
elevated and racial profiling are low to slightly
important (M= 3.13 SD= 1.60; M= 2.09, SD=
1.67) and uncomfortable (M= 2.76, SD= 1.51;
M= 2.18, SD= 1.55). “Scanning bags by X-ray”
(M= 6.46, SD= 0.91) and “Controlling passport”
(M= 6.19, SD=1.02) were considered the most
important procedures for travellers. Scanning
bags and body by X-ray was also considered
the most comfortable (M= 6.14, SD= 1.09,
M=5.70, SD=1.47).
Concerning the elevated procedures, “Stripsearch” was considered the least important
item (M= 1.99, SD= 1.42), followed by “Sniffing
passengers by dogs” (M= 2.61, SD= 1.60), and
the item “Sniffing passengers by dogs” was
also considered the most uncomfortable
procedure (M= 2.33, SD= 1.45), followed by
“Strip-search” (M= 1.88, SD= 1.30). In terms of
racial profiling / human treatment, “Singling out
some passengers based on their ethnicity or
race and sniffing them by dogs” was
considered the least important item (M= 2.25,
SD= 1.59), followed by “Singling out some
passengers based on their ethnicity or race for
strip-search” (M= 1.96, SD= 1.45), while the
item “Singling out some passengers based on
their ethnicity or race and sniffing them by
dogs” was also considered the most
uncomfortable (M= 2.03, SD= 1.49), followed
by “Singling out some passengers based on
their ethnicity or race for strip-search” (M= 1.84,
SD= 1.41).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics of respondents

The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
134

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) using EQS
6.1 was used to examine the dimensionality
and reliability of the items, and to identify the
representative items. According to Kline (2011),
the following goodness-of-fit indices were used
to evaluate the model fit: Sattorra-Bentler ChiSquare (SB χ2), Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual (SRMR), Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation (RMSEA), and
Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Non-Normed Fit
Index (NNFI). The initial models including all
items produced unsatisfactory results because
of unacceptable fit indices. A number of
multidimensional and potentially poor items
were removed according to the Lagrance
Multiplier Test (LM-Test). The indices for the
initial and final models are shown in Table 2
and 3. The fit indices for the final models were
all within acceptable ranges (Kline, 2011).
The Relationship between Awareness, Feeling
of Comfort, and Intention to Re-travel
Generally, the results showed in Table 2 that
travellers indicated that standard airport
security procedures are very important
(M=5.88, SD=1.22). However, elevated and
racial profiling procedures are low to slightly
important (M= 3.13 SD= 1.60; M= 2.09, SD=
1.67). In addition, travellers indicated that they
feel comfort with the standard airport security
procedures (M=5.38, SD=1.50), and
uncomfortable with elevated and racial profiling
procedures (M=2.76, SD=1.51; M=2.18,
SD=1.55). Travelers also indicated that after
experiencing the different levels of airport
security procedures, they intend to re-travel
again (M=6.02, SD=1.01) (Table 3).
Multiple regression analysis was used to
understand the effects of travellers’ awareness
and their feeling of comfort toward airport
security procedures on their intention to retravel. As shown in Table 4, respondents’
scores on the awareness and feeling of comfort
toward the three levels of airport security
procedures were used as independent
variables (IVs), and respondents’ scores on the
intention to re-travel were used as dependent
variable (DV).
The results revealed that, in general, there is
no significant relationship between travellers’
awareness toward airport security procedures,
and their intention to re-travel (F=0.004;
p<0.05). This result does not support
Hypothesis 1. At the same time, the results
indicated that travellers’ awareness toward
standard and elevated airport security
procedures have significant positive effects on
their intention to re-travel, with beta 0.174
(p<0.05), and 0.181 (p<0.05), that support the
Hypotheses 1(a) and 1(b). This means that
whenever the awareness toward the standard
and elevated airport security procedures
increased, travellers’ intent to travel more. The
results also showed that there is no significant
relationship between the awareness toward
racial profiling airport security procedures and
the intention to re-travel. Therefore, Hypothesis
1(c) was not supported.
Regarding travellers’ feeling of comfort toward
airport security procedures, the results showed
that generally, there is no significant
relationship between travellers’ feeling of
comfort and their intention to re-travel
(F=0.015; p<0.05). This does not support
Hypothesis (2). However, the results indicated
that feeling of comfort toward standard and
elevated airport security procedures positively
affect travellers’ intention to re-travel, with beta
0.316 (p<0.05) and 0.238 (p<0.05). Therefore,
Hypotheses 2(a) and 2(b) were accepted.
Hypothesis 2(c) was rejected because the
results indicated that there is no significant
relationship between feelings of comfort toward
racial profiling airport security procedures and
the intention to re-travel. In addition, no signify
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
135
The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
136
cant relationship was found between the IVs
and the DV when the general and personal
variables (shown in Table 1) were considered.
Discussion and Conclusion
The present research makes a distinct and
significant contribution to knowledge and
literature in that it is the first to examine three
levels of airport security procedures: standard,
elevated and racial profiling/human treatment
independently in one single model. Racial
profiling was not considered by previous
studies on intention to re-travel. In addition, it is
the first one conducted in a region of political
instability.
Examining overall perceptions of travellers
toward airport security procedures, it was found
that there is agreement that standard
procedures are important and comfortable.
Jordanian travellers believe that these
procedures can protect them from
accidental/malicious harm, explosions,
hijacking and other threats without causing
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
137
inconvenience. It can be noticed that the least
important elevated security procedures and
racial profiling procedures were the most
uncomfortable. This is due to that after the 9/11
attacks, Arab passengers are more likely to be
inspected by airport security staff than
passengers from other nations. These findings
contradict with the previous research in general
because it has been indicated that after the
9/11 attacks, the passengers feel that the
tightened airport security procedures become
significantly more important (Hernandez, 2007).
This contradiction may be attributed to that the
cases of the two studies are American people
who worry a lot about terrorism, support efforts
to counter and prevent any possible future
attacks. Their negative experience and
structurally mapped cognition about terrorism
and hijacking increased their awareness about
the importance of higher and tighter airport
security procedures.
Although air passengers consider safety is of
ultimate importance as they pay not only for
airplanes but also for the cost of the security
procedures (Sakano et al. 2016), these
procedures make passengers less convenient
and cause assault on their dignity.
Consequently, passengers currently consider
airport security checkpoints as the most critical
and stressful phase of their trip
(AviationFacts.eu, 2017). It has been found in
the literature that inconvenience and dignity
assault influence demand of air travel (AlardsTomalin et al. 2014; Hasisi et al. 2012;
Blackwood, 2015). In a model tested by AlardsTomalin et al. (2014), the perceived dignity
threat caused by elevated airport security
measures has much stronger negative
relationships with enplanement intentions of
travellers. In a related context, the model of the
current research is the first to understand how
travellers’ awareness and their feeling of
comfort toward airport security procedures
influence their intention to re-travel. The results
contradict with the previous research in
general, as travellers indicated that after
experiencing the different levels of airport
security procedures (particularly racial profiling
/ human treatment), they intend to re-travel
again (M= 6.02, SD= 1.01).
In terms of awareness, the findings revealed
that, in general, travellers’ awareness toward
airport security procedures does not influence
their intention to re-travel. However, the results
indicated that travellers’ awareness toward
standard and elevated airport security
procedures influence their intention to re-travel.
So, whenever the awareness toward the
standard and elevated security procedures
decreased, travellers’ intention to re-travel less
through airports, as they think these
procedures are not necessary. This comes in
line with the results of the study conducted by
Beck et al. (2017). It was found that travellers
who trust airport authorities more, intend to
travel more internationally, while those who
have relatively lower levels of overall safety
while flying are inclined to not travel. Tightened
security procedures do not only influence
passengers but also influence airports and
airlines. Blalock et al. (2007) confirmed that the
6% reduction of the number of air passengers
in the United States is attributed to the new
tighter baggage inspection after the 9/11
attacks. As a result, airlines’ profits fell
significantly, as some prospective passengers
opted to not travel by air (AviationFacts.eu,
2017). On the other hand, it was also found
that travellers’ awareness toward racial profiling
at airports does not influence their intention to
travel through airports. While people from most
of the Arab and Islamic countries need to apply
for visas in advance, some other nationalities
can obtain visas on arrival. Because of the
money they pay to get a visa, difficult
procedures and many documents required, and
time spent waiting for a visa, they are forced to
afford the racial profiling procedures at airports.
Dignity save would cost them much more
money, tiredness and time.
Concerning travellers’ feeling of comfort, the
results showed that generally, travellers’ feeling
of comfort does not influence their intention to
re-travel. Nevertheless, the results indicated
that feeling of comfort toward standard and
elevated airport security procedures positively
affect travellers’ intention to re-travel. Thus,
whenever travellers feel less comfortable
toward the standard and elevated security
procedures, they intend to re-travel less
through airports. As stated by Alards-Tomalin
et al. (2014), elevated procedures introduce
The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
138
added concerns regarding the invasion of
personal privacy, and the increasing probability
for indignity and humiliation, which cause
stronger negative relationship with
enplanement intention. The research findings
conclude that standard and elevated airport
security procedures are important and
uncomfortable today, as a reaction to the
previous terrorist events, so low awareness of
their importance and feeling uncomfortable
toward the standard and elevated procedures
would decrease travellers’ intention to re-travel.
In contrast, it was found that travellers’ feeling
of comfort toward racial profiling procedures
does not influence their intention to re-travel.
Therefore, it can be said that although
travellers believe that racial profiling
procedures are unimportant and uncomfortable
at all, they would intend to travel again by air.
As mentioned earlier, that this is attributed to
that most of the respondents are business
travellers. Travelling for business is assigned to
them and they have no choice, even they were
singled out for differential human treatment or
tighter scrutiny based on their ethnicity, race,
religion or country of origin. Free trip is another
possible explanation for our findings, because
usually the costs of the business trips (flight
tickets and accommodation services) as well as
employees’ allowances are paid by a second
party, often the institutions or organizations
employing them.
Recommendations and Future Research
With the accelerated increase of passengers’
number and continuous terrorist threats all over
the world, the administrations of airports
enhanced the level of security and tightened
scrutiny procedures. Those changes have
negative impacts on the travel and tourism
industry in general, and in particular, on
passengers. Although passengers accept
airport security procedures to ensure their
safety from any attack, they are still the most
inconvenient part during their travel. A number
of studies stated that there is a permanent
reduction in air travel attributed to the higher
level of passengers screening. The findings of
the research revealed to be important, as they
demonstrate the opposite of what the previous
literature found. In addition, it is the first to
understand how travellers’ awareness and their
feeling of comfort toward airport security
procedures (standard, elevated, and racial
profiling) influence their intention to re-travel.
Racial profiling was not considered by previous
studies on intention to re-travel. Furthermore, it
is the first one conducted in a region of political
instability.
The results showed that travellers see that
standard procedures are very important, and
they feel comfort with them, while elevated and
racial profiling are low to slightly important and
uncomfortable. What makes a travel through
airport problematic is the sense of indignity and
injustice. Singling out some passengers based
on their ethnicity or race for further inspection
under the gaze of their fellow passengers
would make their travel experience humiliating.
This recommends that analysis of the sense of
humiliation and indignity caused by elevated
and/or racial profiling procedures need to pay
more attention. Furthermore, the findings
revealed that, whenever the awareness and
feeling of comfort toward the standard and
elevated security procedures decreased,
travellers intend to re-travel less through
airports. At this time, the administrations of
airports should be aware that it is perceived
that elevated and racial profiling cause dignity
threat to passengers, and so influence the
demand for air transport. Likewise,
psychological and social statuses of people
have been used to effectively predict overt
behavioural intentions (Ajzen and Fishbein,
1980). Consequently, behavioural intention to
re-travel is an essential indicator of flight ticket
procurement behaviours, so, this needs to be
further addressed. The administrations of
airports should take this finding into consideration and change their daily orders and actions.
In terms of subjectivity of the airport security
personnel in inspecting passengers and their
baggage, a recent study revealed that some
airport security staff tend to be biased in
treating some passengers differently and
singling them out for additional scrutiny checks
(Blackwood et al. 2013), which negatively
increased their feelings of humiliation, or dignity
threat. What make it worse is that this happens
in front of their fellow passengers. This study
suggests that security officials should pay more
attention to the analysis of identity dynamics
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
139
and the experience of humiliation. On the other
hand, airport security personnel should be
better trained on the global ethics of travel and
tourism in order to inspect passengers without
threatening one’s sense of dignity. They should
also develop new programs that could maintain
their focus on suspicious people regardless of
their religion, race, ethnicity, or nationality. After
all, their mission is to protect passengers and
airports not to make them stressful or fearful
when they travel.
The current research showed two main
limitations. Firstly, the sample of this research
consists of Jordanian international travellers.
These people have a similar culture and beliefs
to some extent, and nationality which makes
the sample relatively homogeneous.
Consequently, their findings could be
generalized on the Arab and/or Islamic
countries but could not be generalized
internationally. Secondly, there were some
other variables that were not included into the
model of the current research that may also
influence the travellers’ intention to re-travel,
like the economic situation of countries,
inflation, disposable income of individuals, and
change in flight ticket prices. Therefore, future
research related to this topic should take these
variables into consideration, which would
noticeably influence intention to re-travel.
References
Adeloye, D., & Brown, L. (2018). Terrorism and
domestic tourist risk perceptions. Journal
of Tourism and Cultural Change, 16(3),
217-233.
Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding
attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Alards-Tomalin, D., Ansons, T. L., Reich, T. C.,
Sakamoto, Y., Davie, R., LeboeMcGowan, J. P., & Leboe-McGowan, L. C.
(2014). Airport security measures and
their influence on enplanement intentions:
responses from leisure travellers attending
a Canadian university. Journal of Air
Transport Management, 37, 60-68.
Al-Saad, S., & Ababneh, A. (2017). Concept,
opportunities and challenges of urban
tourism in the Arab world: Case studies of
Dubai, Cairo and Amman. TOURISM – An
International Interdisciplinary Journal, 65
(3), 361-375.
Arana, J., & Leon, C. J. (2008). The impact of
terrorism on tourism demand. Annals of
Tourism Research, 35(2), 299-315.
AviationFacts.eu. (2017). Airport security from
a passenger’s perspective fact sheet.
URL: http://aviationfacts.eu/uploads/thema
/file_en/59a3ca1670726f7882040000/Airp
ort_Security_from_a_Passenger_s_Persp
ective_Fact_sheet.pdf (Accessed on
17.11.2018).
Barros, C., & Assaf, A. G. (2012). Analysing
tourism return intention to an urban
destination. Journal of Hospitality &
Tourism Research, 36(2), 216-231.
Batra, A. (2008). Foreign tourists’ perception
towards personal safety and potential
crime while visiting Bangkok. Anatolia,
19(1), 89-101.
Beck, M. J., Rose, J. M., & Merkert, R. (2018).
Exploring perceived safety, privacy, and
distrust on air travel choice in the context
of differing passenger screening

Blackwood, L., Hopkins, N., & Reicher, S.
(2013). I know who I am, but who do they
think I am? Muslim perspectives on
encounters with airport authorities. Ethnic
and Racial Studies, 36(6), 1090-1108.
Blackwood, L. (2015). Policing airport spaces:
The Muslim experience of scrutiny.
Policing, 9(3), 255–264.
Blalock, G., Kadiyali, V., & Simon, D. (2007).
The impact of post‐9/11 airport security
measures on the demand for air travel.
The Journal of Law & Economics, 50(4),
731-755.
Boholm, M., Möller, N., & Hansson, S. O.
(2016). The concepts of risk, safety, and
security: applications in everyday
language. Risk Analysis, 36(2), 320-338.
Buda, D. M. (2016). Tourism in conflict areas:
complex entanglements in Jordan. Journal
of Travel Research, 55(7), 835-846.
Cadavez, C. (2016). Tourism and terrorism:
protecting paradise. Aviation Security
International, 1(22), 28-30.
Carballo, R. R., León, C. J., & Carballo, M. M.
(2017). The perception of risk by international travellers. Worldwide Hospitality
and Tourism Themes, 9(5), 534-542.
Chen, C. F. (2008). Investigating structural
relationships between service quality,
The influence of airport security procedures on the intention to re-travel.
140
perceived value, satisfaction, and
behavioural intentions for air passengers:
evidence from Taiwan. Transportation
Research Part A: Policy and Practice,
42(4), 709-717.
Chen, J., & Paliwoda, S. (2004). The Influence
of company name in consumer variety
seeking. Journal of Brand Management,
11(3), 219-231.
Chi, C., & Qu, H. (2008). Examining the
structural relationships of destination
image, tourist satisfaction and destination
loyalty: an integrated approach. Tourism
management, 29(4), 624-636.
Churchill, G. (1979). A paradigm for developing
better measures of marketing constructs.
Journal of Marketing Research, 19(4),
491-504.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K.
(2002). Research methods in education.
Routledge.
Cole, S. T., & Chancellor, H. C. (2009).
Examining the festival attributes that
impact visitor experience, satisfaction and

Applied Psychology, 86(3), 386–400.
Costea, M., Hapenciuc, C. V., & Stanciu, P.
(2017). Tourist safety and security: a
factor of the competitiveness of secondary
tourist destinations. Revista de turismstudii si cercetari in turism, (23).
Destination NSW. (2016). Visitors safety and
security.URL: https://www.destinationnsw.
com.au/tourism/industry-opportunities/
visitor-safety-and-security (Accessed on
19.8.2018).
Department of Statistics. (2017). Jordan in
figures. URL: http://dosweb.dos.gov.jo/
Data Bank/JordanInFigures/JORINFIG
Details2017.pdf (Accessed on 9.11.2018).
Edgell, D. (2018). The ten important world
tourism issues for 2018. URL:
https://www.travelmole.com/news_feature.
php?news_id=2028620 (Accessed on
28.7.2018).
Ekinci, Y., & Chen, J. S. (2001). Segmenting
overseas British holidaymakers by
personal values. Journal of Hospitality &
Leisure Marketing, 9(3-4), 5-15.
Essays, UK. (2015). The airport security and
safety in air travel tourism essay. URL:
https://www.ukessays.com/essays/tourism
/the-airport-security-and-safety-in-airtravel-tourism-essay.php (Accessed on
20.8.2018)
Finstad, K. (2010). Response interpolation and
scale sensitivity: evidence against 5-point
scales. Journal of Usability Studies, 5(3),
104-110.
Frederick-Recascino, C., Greene, F., Burns, C.,
& Flin, R. (2003). Airport security: post 9-
11 attitudes of US and UK travelers.
Paper presented at the AIAA’s 3rd Annual
Aviation Technology, Integration, and

re. Computers and Security, 26(1), 35.
Garg, A. (2015). Travel risks vs tourist decision
making: a tourist perspective. International
Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Systems, 8(1), 1-9.
George, R. (2003). Tourist’s perceptions of
safety and security while visiting Cape
Town. Tourism Management, 24(5), 575-
585.
Global Terrorism Database. (2018). Number of
terrorist incidents. URL:
https://www.start.umd.edu/gtd/ (Accessed
on 19.2.2019).

Affairs, 21(6), 85.
Hasisi, B., Margalioth, Y., & Orgad, L. (2012).
Ethnic profiling in airport screening:
lessons from Israel, 1968–2010. American
Law and Economics Review, 14(2), 517-
560.
Hernandez, E. (2007). Airport security: study of
students’ perception and knowledge of the
selection of airline passengers for personal searches. Master Thesis. ProQuest.
Huang, S., & Hsu, C. H. (2009). Travel motivation: linking theory to practice.
International Journal of Culture, Tourism
and Hospitality Research, 3(4), 287-295.
Al-Saad, S., A. Ababneh and M. Alazaizeh (2019) / European Journal of Tourism Research 23, pp. 127-141
141
Institute for Economics and Peace. (2016).
Global Terrorism Index 2016. URL:
http://economicsandpeace.org/wp-content
/uploads/2016/11/Global-Terrorism-Index-
2016.2.pdf (Accessed on 19.2.2019).
Johnson, D., Brazier, D., Forrest, K., Ketelhut,
C., Mason, D., & Mitchell, M. (2011).
Attitudes toward the use of racial/ethnic
profiling to prevent crime and terrorism.
Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(4),
422–447.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of
structural equation modelling. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Kozak, M. (2001). Repeaters’ behaviour at two
distinct destinations. Annals of Tourism
Research, 28(3), 784-807.
Malley, P. (2006). Risks, ethics, and airport
security. Canadian Journal of Criminology
and Criminal Justice, 48(3), 413-421.
Nilsen, M., Albrechtsen, E., & Nyheim, O. M.
(2018). Changes in Norway’s societal
safety and security measures following the
2011 Oslo terror attacks. Safety
Science, 110, 59-68.
Oh, H. (1999). Service quality, customer
satisfaction, and customer value: a holistic
perspective. International Journal of
Hospitality Management, 18(1), 67-82.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 7th
Edition. (2007). Oxford University Press.
Peters, L. A., & Papathanassis, A. (2019).
Security perceptions of tourists in the
aftermath of terrorist attacks. In
Papathanassis, A., Katsios, S., Dinu, N.
(eds.) (2019). Yellow Tourism. Tourism,
Hospitality & Event Management. Cham:
Springer, 83-98.
Prosser, R. (1998). Tourism. In Chadwick, R. F.
(eds.) (1998). Encyclopedia of Applied
Ethics, Vol. 4. San Diego, CA: Academic
Press, 373-401.
Quintal, V., & Polczynski, A. (2010). Factors
influencing tourists’ revisit intentions. Asia
Pacific Journal of Marketing and
Logistics, 22(4), 554-578.
Reisig, M., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2007). The
construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005–1028.
Reisinger, Y., & Mavondo, F. (2005). Travel
anxiety and intentions to travel
internationally: implications of travel risk
perception. Journal of Travel Research,
43, 212-225.
Saad, L. (2006). Anti-Muslim sentiments fairly
commonplace. The Gallup Poll. URL:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/24073/antimu
slim-sentiments-fairly-commonplace.aspx
(Accessed on 12.3.2019).
Sadatsafavi, H., Kim, A. A., Anderson, S. D., &
Bishop, P. (2019). Scenario planning
application in us highway transportation

State University).
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using
multivariate statistics. Allyn &
Bacon/Pearson Education.
Tarlow, P. E. (2009). Tourism safety and
security. The SAGE Handbook of Tourism
Studies, 464-480.
The New York Times. (2017). Trump’s order
blocks immigrants at airports, stocking
fear around globe. URL: http://www.
nytimes.com/2017/01/28/us/trumps-immig
ration-ban-disapproval-applause.html?
rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fus
(Accessed on 28.6.2018).
Turtugulov, A. (2009). Passengers awareness
and perceptions on safety and security
measures and procedures in airport
terminal building (Doctoral Dissertation,
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia).
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling
and police legitimacy: procedural justice,
attributions of motive, and acceptance of
police authority. Criminology, 42(2),253-282.
Wilks, J. (2006). Current issues in tourist
health, safety and security. In Wilks, J.,
Pendergast, D., & Leggat, P. (eds.)
(2006). Tourism in turbulent times: toward
safe experiences for visitors. Oxford, UK:
Elsevier, 3-18.
Willits, F. K., Theodori, G. L., & Luloff, A. E.
(2016). Another look at Likert
Scales. Journal of Rural Social
Sciences, 31(3), 126.