Uncovering vulnerability to fraud and scams among adult victims in online and offline contexts: A systematic review
Dadà, Chiara Barbara ; Colautti, Laura ; Rosi, Alessia ; Cavallini, Elena ; Antonietti, Alessandro ; Iannello, Paola (2025) — Computers in Human Behavior
Type:
Journal Article
Country:
Italy
Synopsis (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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 (AI-Generated)
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.
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.