Skip to main content

The Perfect Match: How Artificial Intelligence Is Industrializing Romance Fraud

Wiederhold, Brenda K. (2026) — Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/21522715261477553 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Deepfakes, Digital Literacy, Emotional Grooming, Financial Exploitation, Generative AI, Pig Butchering, Romance Scams
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
                

            

                    

                
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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

            
The publication examines how artificial intelligence is transforming romance fraud by moving scams from episodic, small-scale operations to scalable, algorithmically driven enterprises. It distinguishes two main genres: advance fee romance scams, where victims are asked to send money to address a fabricated crisis, and investment-based romance scams, or “pig-butchering,” which blend romance with purported lucrative investments. The author frames these schemes as rooted in a structured psychological architecture that builds trust, attachment, and a false sense of intimacy, making the financial exploitation feel like a painful continuation of a genuine relationship. The analysis highlights the scale and evolving sophistication of the threat. Victim losses are substantial, with U.S. and global figures cited from FTC, FBI, and Nasdaq reports, and it notes that AI-enabled tools now enable scammers to initiate contact at scale, use large language model-generated scripts, remember personal details, and conduct convincing conversations. Deepfakes, synthetic profiles, and AI-driven personalization are described as increasing the stealth and transmissibility of these scams, complicating detection beyond traditional methods such as image verification or platform moderation alone. Regarding implications and limitations, the source argues that traditional detection strategies are increasingly unreliable in the AI era, and emphasizes ongoing education around digital literacy and cautious engagement with intimate appeals online. It also notes that despite interventions, victims often experience enduring emotional and financial harm, including post-traumatic stress and rebound scam risk. The article suggests practical guidance such as avoiding transfers of money or financial information to online contacts prior to in-person verification, while acknowledging that robust, scalable defenses remain an evolving challenge.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The editorial identifies a practical detection gap: conventional cues such as grammar errors, response timing, reverse-image searches, and video calls are becoming less reliable against AI-enabled fraud. It also highlights an emerging need to understand how trust is engineered through increasingly convincing artificial identities. These are framing gaps rather than results from a new empirical study.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This is an editorial narrative synthesis. It combines a fictional illustrative case with cited statistics, prior research, industry and government reports, and discussion of AI capabilities to describe romance-fraud tactics, victim vulnerabilities, harms, and prevention implications. No original sample, data collection, or analytic procedure is reported.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article is an editorial and reports no original empirical design, sample, systematic search strategy, or reproducible analysis. Its claims rely on cited external research and reports, and some broad statements about AI-enabled fraud and criminal operations are presented without methodological detail in the editorial itself. Consequently, it is useful for framing but provides limited direct evidence for causal or prevalence conclusions.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should examine how AI-mediated identities engineer trust and how digital-literacy interventions can help people recognize psychological manipulation, not only conventional cyber threats. Research is also needed to identify prevention measures that remain effective as AI reduces the reliability of image searches and other traditional detection practices.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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