Skip to main content

Uncovering vulnerability to fraud and scams among adult victims in online and offline contexts: A systematic review

Chiara Barbara Dadà ; Laura Colautti ; Alessia Rosi ; Elena Cavallini ; Alessandro Antonietti ; Paola Iannello (2025) — Computers in Human Behavior

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2025.108734 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Italy
Tags:   Fraud Vulnerability, Older Adults, Online Fraud, Phishing, Risk Factors, Romance Scams, Scam Victimization, Systematic Review
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 authors conducted a PRISMA-guided systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, of peer-reviewed empirical studies published 2014-2024. Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were completed in September 2024; reference lists were additionally reviewed. Three investigators screened studies, with independent title/abstract and full-text screening procedures. Fraud victims cannot be treated as a homogeneous group; vulnerability reflects scam type, individual characteristics, and context. The most consistently supported risk factors were low conscientiousness, high impulsivity, reduced cognitive functioning, and social isolation. The review found no consistent risk profile, and context-specific studies limit generalization.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Evidence lacks consistent, generalizable fraud-victim risk profiles because fraud types, countries, samples, measures, and contexts vary. The literature disproportionately focuses on older adults, potentially overlooking younger adults’ digital-scam vulnerability. Research rarely establishes which attacks succeed and why, and has limited experimental designs. Studies often assess characteristics after victimization and primarily include victims, leaving susceptibility among un-targeted or non-victimized people less understood. Standardized methods permitting comparisons across fraud types and online/offline contexts are needed.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
PRISMA-guided systematic review, registered in PROSPERO, of peer-reviewed empirical studies published 2014–2024. Searches of PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus were completed in September 2024; reference lists were additionally reviewed. Three investigators screened studies, with independent title/abstract and full-text screening procedures. Included studies examined adult victims of specified scams in real or simulated contexts. Thirty-two studies were synthesized by fraud type, individual risk factors, demographics, country, methodology, and sample characteristics. JBI cross-sectional or cohort appraisal tools assessed study quality.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The review found no consistent risk profile, and context-specific studies limit generalization. Most included evidence was retrospective and cross-sectional, preventing causal inferences or determination of whether characteristics preceded victimization. Heavy reliance on victimization data may omit susceptible people not yet targeted. Heterogeneous psychosocial measures, outcomes, and methodologies prevented meta-analysis and consistent conclusions. Search keywords may not have covered the full fraud literature, including specific types such as phishing and romance scams; rapidly evolving fraud may also outpace any fixed search strategy.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future studies should use longitudinal designs to distinguish pre-existing predictors from consequences of victimization, and behavioral experiments to reduce survey/interview bias. Research should apply unified designs and standardized measures across fraud types and online/offline settings, include younger as well as older adults, and examine susceptibility among non-victims. It should investigate persuasive strategies (urgency, authority, emotional manipulation) and their links to risk profiles, and expand search terms to capture specific and emerging fraud types.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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