Skip to main content

Romance Scam Reporting and Support: Help-Seeking Timing, Trust, and Escalation

Herrera, LD (2026) — 2026 14th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS)

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1109/isdfs69419.2026.11458949 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Proceedings Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   Cybercrime Reporting, Digital Forensics, Financial Harm Reduction, Help Seeking, Incident Response, Measurement, Online Fraud, Platform Policy, Risk Factors, Romance Scams, Social Engineering, Victim Experience, Victim Reporting, Victim Support
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

            
Built on social engineering and identity deception, romance scams often create financial loss and distress. For victims, it can be difficult to know where to go, what information is needed, and what outcomes are realistic. This paper reports results from an anonymous survey of people who were targeted by or experienced a romance scam (completed surveys: n=386), focusing on (1) when and whether victims first reach out for help, (2) perceived difficulty and confidence in navigating support, (3) how trust relates to expectations of assistance, and (4) how loss severity relates to transfer-method complexity. When help was sought, it was often after money was sent rather than earlier in the scam. Many respondents also reported low confidence in finding support and navigational difficulty. Trust in formal organizations is positively associated with expectations of assistance, while perceived reporting difficulty is negatively associated with expectations. Loss severity increases with transfer method complexity, highlighting the value of time-sensitive harm reduction guidance. Based on these findings, this paper outlines design requirements and proposes a coordinated model centered on a structured incident record, a minimal evidence bundle, and “report once, route many” workflows that connect victims to platforms, financial institutions, and reporting channels with minimal additional burden.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The literature has limited empirical evidence on when romance-scam victims first seek help, perceived difficulty navigating support, how trust relates to expected assistance, and the relationship between loss severity and transfer-method complexity. Coordinated support models that reduce victim burden while improving reporting quality also remain underdeveloped.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Anonymous mixed-methods online survey of U.S. adults targeted by or experiencing a romance scam within the prior 12 months. Participants were recruited through paid Facebook advertisements; 386 completed surveys formed the main sample. Measures covered scam timing, losses and transfer methods, help-seeking, navigation and reporting difficulty, trust, assistance expectations, and open-ended unmet needs. Analysis used descriptive statistics, Spearman correlations, Kruskal–Wallis tests, and thematic analysis of narratives.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The voluntary Facebook-recruited U.S. convenience sample cannot estimate population prevalence and may not generalize across countries or cultures. Self-reported timing, losses, and contact/payment sequences are vulnerable to recall error, embarrassment, distress, and differing item interpretations. Item completion and gating created varying denominators. Cross-sectional correlations cannot establish causality. Open-ended themes may reflect what respondents chose to mention. The proposed coordination model was not implemented or evaluated.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Prototype and pilot a workflow that collects a structured incident record, generates a minimal evidence-bundle checklist, and prepares submissions for reporting channels. Test stakeholder integration to determine whether escalation and interruption can be standardized without increasing disclosure risk. Measure time to first action, evidence-bundle completion, initiation of financial interruption steps, and partner acknowledgement rates.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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