With terrorism attacks becoming more frequent worldwide, increased attention is being focused on structure security. Even before the relatively recent discussions of secure design, cognitive scientists have been investigating psychological responses to it. Some of the highlights of those studies are discussed below.
Grosskopf investigated responses to active and passive antiterrorism design. People visiting a county courthouse were shown images of different sorts of security features. Some pictures included clearly recognizable security features (guards and screening stations), while others portrayed concealed security features. The more visible security features made the respondents feel safer, and study participants reported they thought the likelihood of theft, battery or sexual assault to be three to six times lower in the areas with obvious safety measures.
Next, Grosskopf made terrorism top of mind with college students and showed them photos of seven security areas, four with visible security measures (guard with guns, security cameras, razor wire, and K-9 handler with a dog) and three with less obvious measures (bollards, lighting, and a planter-barrier). Student emotional response to the photos with the visible security were negative. When the visible measures were more easily visible, the students reacted with suspicion and fear.
Grosskopf reports in a 2006 paper that, “Within the context of conventional crime, such as theft, battery and sexual assault, visible security measures appeared to be well received. However, when presented with many of the same measures within the context of terrorism, the vast majority of respondents felt tense, suspicious, and fearful.” He postulates that these active antiterrorism measures may reinforce people’s feelings of vulnerability to an uncertain threat, and thus provoke negative emotions.
A frequently researched topic is people’s psychological response to security cameras. Seeing these cameras causes people to think more seriously about potential threats nearby. This can be very important when security personnel are relying on tips from the general public to ensure safety. Also, when people are aware that they’re being filmed, they’re more likely to help others, for example, to pick up dropped items. This helping behavior is most likely when people think that camera feeds are being monitored.
As designing for security becomes even more prevalent and terrorist attacks receive more attention, public response to antiterrorist measures are likely to change, which should prompt design research with user groups.
Kevin Grosskopf. 2006. Evaluating the Societal Response to Antiterrorism Measures. Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 1-9.
Sally Augustin, PhD, a cognitive scientist, is the editor of Research Design Connections (www.researchdesignconnections.com), a monthly subscription newsletter and free daily blog, where recent and classic research in the social, design, and physical sciences that can inform designers’ work are presented in straightforward language. Readers learn about the latest research findings immediately, before they’re available elsewhere. Sally, who is a Fellow of the American Psychological Association, is also the author of Place Advantage: Applied Psychology for Interior Architecture (Wiley, 2009) and, with Cindy Coleman, The Designer’s Guide to Doing Research: Applying Knowledge to Inform Design (Wiley, 2012). She is a principal at Design With Science (www.designwithscience.com) and can be reached at sallyaugustin@designwithscience.com.