Skip to main content

Tainted Love: a Systematic Literature Review of Online Romance Scam Research

Alexander Bilz ; Lynsay A Shepherd ; Graham I Johnson (2023) — Interacting with Computers

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1093/iwc/iwad048 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Countermeasures, Cross Cultural, Law Enforcement, Machine Learning, Measurement, Offender Tactics, Platform Policy, Romance Scams, Systematic Review, Victim Experience, Victim Impacts, Victim Vulnerability
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

            
Romance scams are orchestrated by online criminals who cultivate a deceptive romantic relationship on dating platforms with the aim of extracting money from victims. This form of cybercrime is harmful and often leaves those affected not only financially ruined but also emotionally distressed. The study surveys the scholarly landscape on romance scams to enhance understanding for researchers and practitioners by methodically examining and integrating both qualitative and quantitative evidence produced in recent years. The review identifies factors that influence victimhood and examines possible countermeasures to reduce the impact of these scams. A broad search covered ten scholarly databases and related websites using terms related to romance scams, and the process adhered to well-established guidelines for systematic reviews. From an initial pool of 279 papers screened, 107 were deemed eligible, and 53 were ultimately included in the final analysis. Three central contributions emerge: profiles and techniques commonly employed by romance scammers, the countermeasures available to mitigate these scams, and the factors that predispose individuals to become either a victim or a perpetrator. Although the body of literature on romance scams is growing, the number of empirical or experimental studies remains limited. The review highlights recurring patterns in how scammers operate and how victims may be drawn into the schemes, while also outlining practical measures designed to curb incidents. The authors conclude with directions for future research and with intervention strategies aimed at addressing victimhood. These strategies are intended for practitioners, law enforcement, and industry stakeholders who confront romance scams in various professional contexts. Overall, the work advances comprehension of romance scams by consolidating diverse strands of evidence and clarifying the elements that shape vulnerability and exposure to manipulation. By identifying common scam features, workable countermeasures, and risk factors linked to both victims and offenders, the study provides a structured foundation for ongoing scholarship and practical action. The concluding recommendations emphasize continued inquiry into victim support and intervention, as well as coordinated efforts across professional domains to deter fraudulent schemes and assist those affected.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Empirical and experimental studies remain limited. Research on victim–scammer messaging interactions, perpetrators’ demographics and psychology, and post-scam recovery is scarce. Available data are often under-reported, incomplete, reused across studies, or inaccessible because of ethical, legal, and institutional barriers. Findings on victim risk factors are sometimes contradictory, while technical detection studies lack common datasets and practical deployment.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
PRISMA-guided systematic literature review. The authors searched 10 scholarly databases plus reference lists and Google Scholar alerts, initially identifying 334 records. After deduplication and staged title/abstract and full-text screening, 53 English-language empirical or experimental studies were included. Extracted metadata and findings were double-validated in Covidence, then synthesized descriptively because study designs were too heterogeneous for advanced statistical processing.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The review was limited to English-language, accessible literature and excluded studies with unclear or non-empirical methodologies. Included research was methodologically heterogeneous, limiting direct comparison. The underlying literature often relied on under-reported victim data, small samples, incomplete disclosure of data sources, and repeated use of a few public datasets. These constraints limit generalizability, especially for machine-learning detection findings.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop flexible scam models that include recovery and evolving technologies. Conduct region-specific research and disaggregate data to identify vulnerability patterns by scam type. Build standardized, machine-readable datasets and usable end-user detection tools through collaboration among researchers, platforms, and law enforcement. Develop interactive awareness training, victim support, and ethically governed cross-platform research.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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