Skip to main content

Romance Fraud in China

Bing Han (2026) — Critical criminological perspectives

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

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


              
              

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 chapter includes a comparison of traditional romance scams and pig-butchering scams, as indicated by Table 11.1. Stigma of pig-butchering victimisation is described as a barrier to justice and a source of further vulnerability. Stigma associated with fraud victimisation affects reporting rates. The supplied text contains editorial summaries and a table description, but not the full Chapter 11 text.

Identified Gaps

The supplied summaries identify a need to understand pig-butchering as more than financial fraud: culturally constructed gender identities may increase vulnerability, while stigma may shape reporting, investigation, and recovery. The chapter is presented as addressing a comparatively less-covered, nuanced form of interpersonal gender-based harm.

Methods

The chapter includes a comparison of traditional romance scams and pig-butchering scams, as indicated by Table 11.1.

Limitations

The supplied text contains editorial summaries and a table description, but not the full Chapter 11 text. It therefore does not report the chapter's data sources, sample, analytic procedures, or evidentiary limitations. Claims available here should be treated as high-level conceptual or comparative observations rather than independently assessable empirical findings.

Future Work

Further research should examine how Chinese cultural and gender norms, victim stigma, reporting, investigation, and longer-term recovery interact in pig-butchering victimisation. Comparative work should distinguish pig-butchering from traditional romance scams while assessing harms beyond financial loss.

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