Fake it till you make it: the psychological and communication tactics behind “Pig Butchering” scams

Asyalı, Ayşe Nur ; Frank, Muriel-Larissa ; Hölzmer, Pol (2026) — Journal of Cybersecurity

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

Pig butchering is characterized as an advanced form of cyber-enabled social engineering that blends romantic engagement with investment schemes. While much of the existing scholarship emphasizes the experiences of victims, there is a notable gap in understanding how scammers are trained to deploy these strategies. To address this, the study draws on a distinctive data source—scam manuals that guide operational methods—to reveal the psychological and communication theories that inform their use. The analysis indicates that operators deliberately harness patterns of interpersonal communication, the dynamics of relationships, and motivational cues to earn victims’ trust and commitment, and to steer them toward actions aligned with the scammers’ objectives. In doing so, these actors aim to influence victims’ self-growth motivations, shaping how they perceive risk, opportunity, and personal development within the fraudulent context. The findings point to a coherent mechanism in which training materials encode a repertoire of strategies that systematically exploit social-psychological processes. By orchestrating conversations, mate-selection dynamics, and aspirational messaging, scammers manipulate victims’ self-perceptions and decision-making, fostering attachment and a sense of progressing personal goals. This orchestrated approach helps explain how so many victims become gradually invested and less able to disengage. The study thus documents a structured interplay between communication tactics and motivational appeals that underpins the emergent trust and commitment observed in these operations. To synthesize these insights, the authors propose a unified stage model that maps and links the relevant psychological and communication theories across the sequence of scam stages. The model serves to integrate theoretical perspectives and to illuminate how each stage relies on specific social-cognitive mechanisms. In addition, the discussion situates the model within the broader cybersecurity literature, arguing that it can inform the design of more targeted prevention and intervention strategies. By explicitly addressing the human vulnerabilities exploited by sophisticated cyber-enabled crime, the framework offers a basis for developing measures that disrupt the favorable conditions for manipulation and reduce victims’ susceptibility to such deception.

Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)

Identified gaps include a lack of explicit psychological mechanisms—why the tactics are so effective—beyond the theories cited; heavy reliance on scam manuals and secondary sources with uncertain authorship or updates; absence of first-hand perpetrator data; limited empirical validation across different cultures, platforms, and fraud modalities; need to connect findings to concrete prevention strategies.

Methods (AI-Generated)

Methods combined qualitative content analysis of leaked scam manuals with systematic data collection and theory-driven interpretation. We sourced 42 manuals from publicly accessible Telegram channels (ultimately 26 analyzed) after open-source intelligence checks to confirm exclusivity. To prepare content for analysis, content was translated to English and reviewed by a native speaker. A three-step analytic approach combined inductive open coding to surface manipulation tactics, and deductive coding to ground them in established theories (e.g., SPT, SDT, IMT, Maslow). We compiled a coding framework linking tactics to psychological and communication theories and then used them to construct a unified stage model of hunting, raising, and killing across Sha Zhu Pan scams.

Limitations (AI-Generated)

Limitations arise from the dataset and methodology. The 26 analyzed manuals come from leaked sources on Telegram, with uncertain authorship and distribution, raising questions about representativeness and potential selection bias. Translation to English may obscure nuance, and reliance on open-source documents precludes direct observation of real-world interactions or victims. The data capture is cross-sectional and cannot establish temporal evolution or causality across stages. Coding decisions in qualitative analysis may reflect researcher interpretation; although multiple coders reconciled differences, residual subjectivity remains. Generalizability to non-Chinese contexts or evolving scam variants should be treated cautiously.

Future Work (AI-Generated)

Validate the unified stage model with empirical victim data; extend theory integration to other scam types; examine cross-cultural applicability; test targeted prevention and education interventions; assess AI-enabled personalization and adaptation in authentic settings; explore longitudinal trajectories of victim vulnerability.

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.



        
      

Romance Scam Research Center (RSRC)
1100 W Cherry St
Vermillion, SD 57069
USA

We currently do not provide direct support. If you need immediate help or to report a crime, visit our curated resource list.

Resource List

© 2026 Romance Scam Research Center, a program of the Social Technology and Safety Foundation.