Skip to main content

Relationship fraud: Romance, friendship and family frauds

Mark Button ; Elisabeth Carter (2024) — Journal of Economic Criminology

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


              
              

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 editorial introduces a special issue through a narrative overview of relationship fraud. It presents a preliminary typology built from known cases, describes common relationship-fraud mechanisms, and synthesises the focus and contributions of ten included papers. Victim-blaming narratives deepen harm and create barriers to reporting and aftercare. The proposed typology is explicitly described as a non-definitive starting point to be developed further.

Identified Gaps

Research has concentrated narrowly on online dating fraud and female victims in heterosexual relationships. Male and same-sex victims have received little research. Several relationship-fraud categories in the typology, offenders, and public sentiment are also described as under-researched. The authors state that relationship fraud more broadly remains under-researched.

Methods

This editorial introduces a special issue through a narrative overview of relationship fraud. It presents a preliminary typology built from known cases, describes common relationship-fraud mechanisms, and synthesises the focus and contributions of ten included papers. It does not report a standalone empirical sample, data collection procedure, or formal systematic review.

Limitations

The proposed typology is explicitly described as a non-definitive starting point to be developed further. The article is an editorial overview rather than a standalone empirical study, so its claims primarily synthesise examples and referenced scholarship rather than presenting new original data or testing prevalence, causation, or intervention effectiveness.

Future Work

Conduct research across the broader range of relationship frauds beyond online romance fraud, including under-researched categories in the proposed typology. Priorities include male and same-sex romance-fraud victims, offender rationalisations, public attitudes and blame, sextortion, inheritance-focused fraud, and victim experiences and help-seeking.

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