Skip to main content

To pay or not to pay: An exploratory analysis of sextortion in the context of romance fraud

Cassandra Cross ; Karen Holt ; Thomas J Holt (2023) — Criminology & Criminal Justice

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/17488958221149581 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Australia, Financial Loss, Online Fraud, Reporting, Romance Scams, Scamwatch, Sextortion, Social Media, Victim Characteristics, Victim Experience, Victim Reporting, Victim Vulnerabilities
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 quantitative study analyzed 2,686 de-identified Scamwatch romance-fraud reports filed from July 2018 through July 2019, including 210 narratives manually coded as sextortion. Logistic models compared sextortion with other romance-fraud reports and examined which sextortion reporters lost money. Sextortion reporters were more likely to be young and male and to report loss of personal details, but were less likely than other romance-fraud reporters to report financial loss. Within the sextortion group, self-reported financial hardship and chronic illness were associated with a greater likelihood of losing money. Unscreened and unverified self-reports, missing fields, international submissions, and inference from one variable-length text field likely undercount sextortion and prevent generalization.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Research on the association between romance fraud and sextortion is limited. Little is known about characteristics of victims facing sextortion within romance fraud, factors associated with financial loss, and how sextortion and romance-fraud victims differ. The dataset also cannot explain victims’ reasons for responding to sextortion demands or reporting, including motivations, expectations, barriers, and help-seeking. More evidence is needed across geographic contexts and with larger samples.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study analyzed de-identified Scamwatch romance-fraud reports provided by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, lodged July 2018–July 2019. After duplicate removal and missing-data exclusions, 2,686 reports were analyzed; 210 involved coded sextortion. Researchers manually reviewed mandatory free-text descriptions to identify sextortion and financial loss. Two binary logistic regressions examined: (1) correlates of sextortion reporting among romance-fraud reports and (2) correlates of financial loss among sextortion reporters. Measures included contact channel, loss of personal details, residence, self-reported vulnerability indicators, age, and gender.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The online, self-report Scamwatch data are not generalizable to all victims, especially non-reporters. Anyone globally could submit a report without screening or human interaction, preventing assessment of data quality. Reports contained missing fields and all details were unverified, reflecting complainants’ recollections and framing. Sextortion was manually inferred from a single, variable-length free-text field rather than a dedicated question, likely underrepresenting its occurrence. Some reports categorized as romance fraud may not have involved a pre-existing relationship, complicating differentiation from standalone sextortion.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Use larger, comprehensive samples in Australia and globally to test whether chronic illness and financial hardship consistently predict sextortion victimization and payment. Compare geographic contexts. Directly ask sextortion victims about their decision-making, motivations and expectations for reporting, barriers to reporting, and help-seeking, to identify intervention points and inform prevention, policy, and practice. Further distinguish romance fraud from sextortion and examine sextortion within romance-fraud schemes as a potentially distinct offending category.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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