Skip to main content

From swipe to swindle: a narrative review of research on older adult victims of romance fraud

Taylor Pope ; Christopher H. Seto (2026) — Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect

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: 10.1080/08946566.2026.2690996 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   AI Enabled Scams, Digital Safeguards, Fraud Reporting, Loneliness, Older Adults, Online Dating, Romance Scams, Social Isolation
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation 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

            
This narrative review examines research on romance fraud affecting older adults (defined as 55 and older) and synthesizes empirical findings from eight studies published between 2017 and 2024. Its purpose is to understand the characteristics of older adult victims, how scammers target this group, and which prevention and detection approaches may be effective. The authors draw on criminology and gerontology perspectives to situate romance fraud within broader digital risk and aging-related social dynamics, and they distinguish romance fraud from other online scams such as grandparent or impersonation schemes. The review identifies that older adults often face a convergence of factors—social isolation, widowhood, emotional vulnerability, and variable digital literacy—that shape their risk and experience of victimization. Victims tend to experience deeper emotional investment, longer grooming periods, and substantial psychosocial harm, including heartbreak, self-blame, and fear of losing independence. Financial losses occur, but the emotional and relational consequences can be especially severe. A notable theme is that older victims may underreport abuse due to shame or perceived judgment, and reporting behaviors influence observed risk patterns. The review also notes that the level of victimization by age is not uniformly higher for older adults compared with younger groups, but the impact when victimized can be more consequential for the elderly. Limitations highlighted include reliance on cross-sectional designs, a concentration of data from the U.S. and U.K., and potential reporting biases. The authors call for more longitudinal, cross-cultural research and for interventions such as scam-education programs, digital-safety supports, and platform safeguards to adapt to evolving scam techniques. They emphasize treating romance fraud as a dynamic, environment-influenced problem rather than attributing risk solely to individual vulnerability.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Older-adult romance-fraud research is limited, often combines age groups or uses small older-adult subsamples, and is concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia. No reviewed study prospectively used validated loneliness or social-isolation measures to test their relationship with incident fraud. Evidence about protective factors, cross-cultural variation, emerging AI-enabled tactics, and unreported victimization is insufficient.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Narrative review of peer-reviewed English-language empirical studies on romance fraud affecting adults aged 55 or older. Authors searched ProQuest, Scopus, and Google Scholar in March 2025, updated in July 2025, and used citation chaining. The first author screened titles, abstracts, and full texts; the second verified included studies. From 605 records, eight qualitative or quantitative studies were synthesized.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Included studies were mostly cross-sectional or single-time-point and relied on victim disclosure, creating recall, selection, and reporting bias. Evidence was concentrated in the United States and United Kingdom, with one Australian study, limiting transferability. The review included only eight studies because of its older-adult focus and did not use review-management software, leaving potential for human error.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Conduct studies focused exclusively on older adults, examine protective factors and intervention outcomes, and use longitudinal designs with validated loneliness and isolation measures. Compare older victims across national and cultural contexts, track AI-enabled and deepfake-based tactics, and develop ways to identify victims who did not report, including family proxy reports.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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