Skip to main content

The Scammers’ Psychological Warfare: A Call to Arms

Yaniv Hanoch ; Stacey Wood ; Marguerite DeLiema ; S. Duke Han ; Peter A. Lichtenberg (2026) — Psychological Science in the Public Interest

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
1
Average per calendar year
Too new for an annual average

Count checked .

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: 10.1177/15291006261431553 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Cross Cultural, Crypto Romance Scams, Financial Exploitation, Fraud And Scams, Law Enforcement, Older Adults, Pig Butchering, Prevention, Psychology, Romance Scams, Scam Susceptibility, Social Engineering, 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

            
Fraud and scams represent some of the most widespread offenses globally, causing substantial emotional, financial, health, and psychological distress to millions each year. Although the scope of the problem is broad, the psychological research that investigates why certain individuals are more vulnerable to fraudulent solicitations, the methods scammers employ to attract victims, the therapeutic strategies that may aid those affected, and the design of educational or preventive programs to curb susceptibility, as well as how to improve reporting and what policies might protect the public, is still in its early stages. This article aims to address this urgent social issue by outlining a clear set of objectives. It begins by offering readers state-of-the-art insights into fraud research—summarizing what has been accomplished to date and identifying the most pressing gaps that remain unaddressed. A further objective is to communicate the urgency of the problem and to motivate researchers to pursue investigations that are relevant to their areas of expertise. By documenting current knowledge and highlighting critical unknowns, the piece seeks to mobilize scholars and practitioners alike to contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of fraud dynamics and to develop targeted research agendas. In approaching these aims, the article also emphasizes the need for research that translates into real-world impact, bridging theoretical findings with practical applications that can inform policy, prevention, and intervention efforts. The overarching goal, however, extends beyond scholarly discourse. To effectively combat fraud, the article advocates for coordinated action that unites a broad array of stakeholders across sectors. Collaboration is urged among private enterprises, nonprofit organizations, educational providers, financial institutions, government agencies, grassroots and international movements, and law enforcement bodies, among others. By fostering such alliances, the work envisions pathways to translate knowledge into tangible change. The authors hope to captivate a diverse audience of interested parties and to stimulate partnerships that lead to direct, actionable outcomes—ranging from enhanced prevention and reporting mechanisms to informed policy development and coordinated responses that reduce the incidence and impact of fraudulent activities.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Psychological fraud research is limited across behavioral, clinical, cognitive, forensic, health, personality, and neuropsychology. Evidence on demographic and individual risk factors is mixed and contingent on scam type, data source, and outcome measure. Research rarely measures stress or high arousal during scams; ethnicity, mental health, dementia, learning disability, risk perception, and non-older populations are underexamined. There are few bespoke victim treatments, limited evidence on financial-decision tools in fraud cases, and little research on the tactics and lifecycle of emerging crypto-romance and digital-arrest scams.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This is a narrative, state-of-the-art review and call to action, described as comprehensive but not exhaustive. It synthesizes prior surveys, administrative complaint and law-enforcement records, longitudinal victim databases and cohorts, laboratory and field experiments, interviews, qualitative and mixed-methods studies, psychometric assessment development, neuropsychological testing, and neuroimaging. The review organizes evidence on scam prevalence, susceptibility, persuasion tactics, neurocognitive correlates, financial decision-making, impacts, prevention, reporting, and coordinated institutional responses.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article states that psychological fraud research is methodologically limited and that evidence is inconsistent across studies. Findings vary because studies use different scam types, samples, measures, data sources, and outcomes such as susceptibility versus reported victimization. Reporting is substantially incomplete, which limits survey and administrative data. Neuroscience evidence is nascent, often based on older-adult samples, includes relatively few longitudinal studies, and sometimes has small samples that constrain generalizability. The review itself is explicitly comprehensive but not exhaustive.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Test scam-specific psychological tactics and stages, especially crypto-romance and digital-arrest scams. Conduct longitudinal, larger, and more representative studies to establish temporal links between cognitive, affective, contextual, and victimization factors. Develop and validate standardized, ecologically valid financial decision-making assessments and risk-prediction tools. Experimentally assess stress and emotional arousal, and test multilevel prevention, support, reporting, and recovery interventions involving platforms, banks, law enforcement, health services, and international stakeholders.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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