The online dating romance scam: causes and consequences of victimhood
Buchanan, T. ; Whitty, MT. (2013) — Psychology, Crime & Law
Type:
Journal Article
Country:
United Kingdom
Synopsis (AI-Generated)
The study by Buchanan and Whitty (2013) aims to identify psychological characteristics that may be associated with being victimized by the online dating romance scam, a crime that mixes intimate deception with financial loss. It comprises two samples: online daters recruited from a large dating site and participants recruited from a victim-support site, totaling hundreds of respondents who completed a battery of online measures. The researchers tested hypotheses about loneliness, personality traits (Big Five), romantic beliefs, and sensation seeking as potential risk factors for scam victimization, and they also gathered accounts of financial and emotional impact from those who reported being fooled. Across the analyses, the authors found that most hypothesized factors did not robustly distinguish victims from nonvictims. The only statistically significant predictor of victimhood was higher scores on romantic beliefs, particularly related to idealization and related facets of “Love Finds a Way” and related constructs. Other measures—loneliness, extraversion, agreeableness, neuroticism, and sensation seeking—failed to show consistent, independent associations with being fooled by a scam. The study notes that emotional distress can be substantial for victims, even when no money is lost, reinforcing the complexity of injury beyond financial harm. The authors discuss the implications for prevention and victim support, while acknowledging limitations such as the low explained variance and reliance on self-selected online samples. In sum, the research suggests that stronger romantic beliefs may elevate risk, but many other expected risk factors did not emerge as reliable predictors in these data.
Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)
The paper identifies little prior empirical knowledge of romance-scam victims’ psychological characteristics and notes that fraud research often combines disparate scam types, limiting specificity. It also finds that Idealization predicts victimhood only weakly, leaving other risk factors and victim typologies unidentified. The specific romantic attitudes associated with financial loss remain unclear, partly because the Love at First Sight subscale was unreliable.
Methods (AI-Generated)
Two online cross-sectional questionnaire studies examined psychological correlates and consequences of online-dating romance scam victimhood. Study 1 recruited 853 users of UK dating sites; Study 2 recruited 397 users of a victim-support website. Participants completed measures of Big Five traits, loneliness, sensation seeking, romantic beliefs, scam experience, financial loss, and a single-item emotional-distress measure. Logistic regressions compared victims with non-victims and financial with non-financial victims; combined victim data (up to 470) were used for correlational and group analyses of distress and loss.
Limitations (AI-Generated)
Both samples were self-selected and not representative, so victimization prevalence cannot be extrapolated. Study 1 drew from dating sites tailored to mature professionals, potentially biasing age and other characteristics; Study 2 was likely biased toward victims motivated to seek or share support. Emotional impact was measured with a blunt general-distress item rather than nuanced reactions. The Love at First Sight romantic-beliefs subscale had low reliability, compromising conclusions about components of romantic beliefs.
Future Work (AI-Generated)
Use multidimensional affect scales or qualitative methods to examine victims’ specific emotional reactions. Identify additional risk factors or victim types, because the measured psychological predictors had limited practical value. Further explore which aspects of romantic attitudes distinguish financially defrauded victims from those who disengage before losing money.
AI-Generated Content Notice
The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.
Found a possible error? Request a correction.