Skip to main content

The Gamification of Online Romance Fraud through Offenders’ Cards

Yushawu Abubakari ; Valeen Oseh-Ovarah (2025) — Digital Threats: Research and Practice

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1145/3773289 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Czech Republic
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Asymmetric Information, Cross Cultural, Fake Profiles, Game Theory, Ghana, Grooming, Information Asymmetry, Offender Competition, Offender Narratives, Offender Networks, Prevention, Psychology, Romance Scams, Sakawa, Topping, Victim Experience
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

            
This qualitative offender study was conducted in Tamale, Ghana. Researchers recruited 15 self-identified "game boys" through three network leaders' endorsements, referral access, and prolonged methodological grooming. Data came from year-long fieldwork using informal conversations and semi-structured face-to-face, telephone, and WhatsApp interviews, conducted in Dagbani, English, and Pidgin English and translated into English. A high-investment offender interacting with a trusting, low-awareness victim produces an equilibrium favoring prolonged deception and maximum financial or emotional exploitation. Offenders collect information about victims to tailor communication and exploit emotional, social, and psychological vulnerabilities. The evidence is based on a small, localized sample of 15 male-identified "game boys" in Tamale, recruited through existing relationships and network leaders; results may not represent female offenders, other Ghanaian settings, victims, or other jurisdictions.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited direct empirical study of how romance-fraud offenders conceptualize and narrate scams as a “game,” despite broader work on offender motivations, representations, and tactics. It also identifies rare use of game theory for romance fraud, limited attention to strategic interactions among fraudsters, victims, and law enforcement, and little research on competition among collaborating offenders. It notes scarcity of victim-centered research in the Global South.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Qualitative offender study in Tamale, Ghana. Researchers recruited 15 self-identified “game boys” through three network leaders’ endorsements, referral access, and prolonged methodological grooming. Data came from year-long fieldwork using informal conversations and semi-structured face-to-face, telephone, and WhatsApp interviews, conducted in Dagbani, English, and Pidgin English and translated into English. Transcripts and fieldnotes underwent iterative thematic, interpretive game-theoretic analysis using Nash equilibrium and asymmetric-information concepts, supplemented by decision trees, offender probability estimates, and payoff calculations.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The evidence is based on a small, localized sample of 15 male-identified “game boys” in Tamale, recruited through existing relationships and network leaders; results may not represent female offenders, other Ghanaian settings, victims, or other jurisdictions. Several interviews were unrecorded and reconstructed from detailed notes. Quantitative-looking probability and expected-value estimates are based on offenders’ self-reports, with grooming estimates drawn from only three leaders, and the authors note these may vary by process and offender.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Test and refine game-theoretic models of romance fraud across offenders, victims, platforms, and law enforcement, including offender competition. Evaluate whether automated identical-image flagging, public awareness/digital-literacy efforts, and symmetric-information practices disrupt fraud equilibria and reduce deception opportunities.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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