Skip to main content

The Language of Romance Crimes

Elisabeth Carter (2024) — The Language of Romance Crimes

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1017/9781009273008 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   Coercive Control, Financial Abuse, Forensic Linguistics, Grooming, Online Dating, Romance Scams, Sextortion, Threatening Communications
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

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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

            
The study qualitatively analyses 71 representative message extracts from 30 romance-fraud cases. Victims provided case data with informed consent and university ethical approval; sextortion cases were supplemented by victim-authorised public correspondence, often with victim messages redacted. The study finds that sextortion in romance fraud is prepared in advance as a financial backup when the relationship no longer yields money. Fraudsters counter requests for video or in-person verification by reframing them as evidence that the victim lacks trust. Sextortion cases were difficult to access because reporting does not capture sextortion within romance fraud and compounded shame suppresses reporting.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies a dearth of empirical research on the language of fraud and on sextortion embedded in romance fraud. Legal and data-system separation of fraud from sextortion obscures their co-produced nature, limits sensitive-data access, and prevents reporting mechanisms from capturing sextortion within romance fraud. The author also identifies under-research of the intentional acquisition of intimate content for later financial extortion.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study qualitatively analyses 71 representative message extracts from 30 romance-fraud cases. Victims provided case data with informed consent and university ethical approval; sextortion cases were supplemented by victim-authorised public correspondence, often with victim messages redacted. Critical discourse analysis and conversation-analytic principles examine interactional tactics across romance, transition, finance, and post-romance sextortion stages.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Sextortion cases were difficult to access because reporting does not capture sextortion within romance fraud and compounded shame suppresses reporting. Consequently, sextortion material came from public victim-authorised sources and often contained little or no victim content because it had been redacted. The corpus is qualitative and consists of selected representative extracts, limiting direct assessment of prevalence or generalisability.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop public-facing protection messaging that represents romance fraud as progressive grooming rather than isolated, obvious money requests. Improve police response, victim aftercare, and reporting mechanisms so romance-fraud-related sextortion is captured rather than siloed from fraud. Use the identified interactional stages and tactics to support evidence-based prevention and protection guidance.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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