Skip to main content

ROMANCE AND RUIN: THE INTERPLAY OF FINANCIAL LOSS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING AMONG LOVE SCAM VICTIMS IN THE PHILIPPINES

Dr. Rhem Rick N. Corpuz ; Mary Joy G. Galang ; Kim Hope S. Gueco ; Kate D. Pamintuan (2025) — EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR)

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

This paper examines the relationship between financial loss and psychological well-being among victims of online romance scams in the Philippines using a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design. The study surveyed 384 Filipino social media users who had experienced or encountered love scams, collecting data on demographics, platforms used, scam tactics, financial losses, psychological distress, and help-seeking behavior. Findings show that victims were predominantly young, single women, most active on Facebook, with scams typically identified within one to three months of initial contact. The most common manipulation strategies were love bombing and emotional promises of a future together, while digital wallets (e.g., GCash, PayMaya) were the primary modes of financial transfer. Most respondents reported modest financial losses, but statistical analysis revealed a significant positive correlation between financial loss and psychological distress (increased sadness, stress, anxiety) and a negative association with quality of life. Psychological impacts included persistent sadness, self-blame, loss of trust, heightened suspicion of others, and increased caution in forming online relationships. Despite these effects, nearly half of the victims did not report the scam to authorities or platforms, often seeking no professional or social support, suggesting barriers such as shame, stigma, or limited access to resources. The study concludes that financial loss is a key driver of psychological harm in romance scam victimization and emphasizes the need for targeted awareness campaigns, improved platform monitoring, safeguards in digital payment systems, and accessible victim support services tailored to vulnerable populations in the Philippine context.

Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)

The paper identifies limited localized Philippine evidence on the psychological effects of love-scam victimization. It notes that prior research often emphasizes scam typologies or global trends, leaving insufficient understanding of financial-loss extent and its association with psychological well-being in Philippine contexts. Findings also indicate gaps in accessible victim support and formal help-seeking.

Methods (AI-Generated)

A quantitative cross-sectional survey of 384 Philippine adults who had been victimized or targeted by online romance scams. Participants were recruited purposively through online and community-based collection; data were gathered via Google Forms and face-to-face structured, self-administered questionnaires. Measures covered demographics, platform use, scam experiences and tactics, financial loss, reporting, and Likert-scale psychological well-being. Descriptive statistics and Pearson correlations were conducted in SPSS and Jamovi (p < .05).

Limitations (AI-Generated)

The cross-sectional survey design supports association rather than causal inference about financial loss and psychological well-being. Purposive/convenience recruitment of adults who reported being victimized or targeted may limit representativeness and introduce self-selection bias. Self-administered retrospective reports of scam experiences, losses, tactics, and distress may also be affected by recall, disclosure, or social-desirability bias.

Future Work (AI-Generated)

Further research should examine long-term emotional recovery and evaluate effective prevention strategies. The paper also recommends testing platform detection of manipulative behaviors, transaction safeguards for new recipients, and targeted digital-literacy and awareness initiatives.

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

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.