Skip to main content

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

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

DOI: 10.1080/08946566.2026.2690996
Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   romance fraud, older adults, online dating, social isolation, loneliness, fraud reporting, digital safeguards, AI-enabled scams

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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.

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.

Found a possible error? Request a correction.