Skip to main content

How Do Individuals Justify and Rationalize their Criminal Behaviors in Online Romance Fraud?

Martin Offei ; Francis Kofi Andoh-Baidoo ; Emmanuel W. Ayaburi ; David Asamoah (2020) — Information Systems Frontiers

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1007/s10796-020-10051-2 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Ghana
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Denial Of Risk, Fraud Intention, Internet Cafes, Neutralization Theory, Offender Rationalization, Offender Tactics, Online Dating, Romance Scams, Victim Experience
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This study investigates how offenders justify and rationalize their participation in online romance fraud (ORF) by applying neutralization theory and denial of risk theory. Unlike most research that focuses on victims, the authors examine the offender perspective, aiming to understand the cognitive mechanisms that allow individuals to commit fraud while minimizing feelings of guilt or social condemnation. Neutralization theory suggests that offenders temporarily suspend moral constraints by denying responsibility, denying injury, or denying the existence of a victim. Denial of risk theory, on the other hand, explains how offenders rationalize their crimes by downplaying or rejecting the risks involved, whether legal, social, or personal. This study integrates both theories to analyze how these cognitive strategies shape intentions to commit ORF. The research draws on 320 survey responses collected at Internet cafés in Ghana, known as hotspots for romance fraud activity. Respondents were mostly young adults between 20 and 30 years old, with secondary or tertiary education, and high computer competence. Using structural equation modeling, the authors tested the influence of neutralization and denial of risk on the intention to commit romance fraud. The findings reveal that not all neutralization techniques are equally important. Denial of victim was found to significantly predict the intention to commit ORF, suggesting that offenders often view their targets as wealthy foreigners or willing participants rather than genuine victims. By contrast, denial of responsibility and denial of injury were not significant predictors in this context. Offenders recognize responsibility and acknowledge harm, but shift blame or reinterpret the interaction so that the victim is not seen as harmed. Denial of risk independently influenced intention to commit ORF and also moderated the effect of denial of victim. Offenders who perceived little or no risk were more likely to justify their actions and express stronger intentions to commit fraud. This dynamic demonstrates how confidence in anonymity, cross-border enforcement difficulties, and comparisons with “worse” crimes sustain offender motivation. The study contributes theoretically by clarifying the boundary conditions of neutralization theory, showing that its effectiveness varies depending on context and offender perceptions of risk. Practically, it suggests that prevention efforts must target both justifications and rationalizations. Educating potential offenders about the severe emotional and financial harms to victims, challenging narratives that minimize victimhood, and demonstrating the real risks of detection and prosecution could reduce motivation. Dating platforms are also encouraged to incorporate screening mechanisms that flag risk-taking tendencies such as overconfidence or lack of empathy. Overall, the article provides empirical evidence that online romance fraud offenders use a blend of justification (neutralization) and rationalization (denial of risk) to legitimize their actions, underscoring the need for multi-layered prevention and enforcement strategies.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Empirical ORF research remains evolving and has largely focused on victims and vulnerabilities. Offender motivations for committing ORF despite victim harm were described as unclear. Prior neutralization research has produced inconsistent findings, indicating a need to examine contextual boundary conditions, including denial of risk in relationship-based fraud.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study tested an integrated neutralization and denial-of-risk model of intention to commit online romance fraud. It used a 5-point Likert survey, adapted measures, expert face-validity review, and a 70-person pilot. Snowball sampling identified alleged fraud hotspots; 350 questionnaires were distributed and 320 completed responses collected. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the measurement model, followed by covariance-based SEM in Mplus 8.0, including moderation tests for denial of risk.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The study was restricted to one context, limiting generalizability. Respondent income was unavailable despite its potential relevance to fraud engagement. Self-report survey responses depended on respondents’ state of mind and may have been affected by social desirability, particularly given the secretive, non-workplace criminal context. The explained variance in fraud intention was relatively low (R² = 0.111).

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Include respondent income to assess its influence on decisions to engage in online romance fraud. Use objective data and alternative research techniques to reduce social-desirability effects. Survey respondents across multiple contexts to test whether findings generalize and to clarify neutralization dynamics and other psychological factors.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.