Skip to main content

Devices of Textual Illusion: Victimization in Romance Scam E-Letters

Guntars Dreijers ; Valda Rudziša (2020) — Research in Language

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.18778/1731-7533.18.1.01 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Latvia
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Antconc, Cross Cultural, E Letters, Facebook, Financial Extortion, Forensic Linguistics, Linguistic Deception, Linguopsychological Devices, Online Dating, Psychology, Romance Scams, Scam Letters, Textual Analysis, Trust Manipulation, 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

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 study qualitatively analysed seven romance-scam letter sets, each containing 18-23 letters; two were mock correspondences in which the authors responded to unsolicited Facebook messages. It compared these sets with samples from romancescam.org, used structural reduction to identify micro- and macrostructural features and functional scam stages, and used AntConc to plot high-frequency lexemes. The authors report that persuasion, flattery, trust appeals, and appeals to bonding, greed, and altruism were common scam devices. Cross-letter linguistic and structural similarities may be used as warning templates against sharing personal information or engaging in suspicious financial schemes. The evidence is based on only seven letter sets, including two researcher-created mock exchanges, so findings may not represent the full diversity of scams, platforms, languages, offenders, or victim experiences.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies relatively little focus on language-design patterns in romance-scam research, which has traditionally emphasized victims’ mental consequences, prevalence, prevention, and the scam process. It also calls for additional study of linguistic patterns, offender intent, and detrimental mental outcomes.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study qualitatively analysed seven romance-scam letter sets, each containing 18–23 letters; two were mock correspondences in which the authors responded to unsolicited Facebook messages. It compared these sets with samples from romancescam.org, used structural reduction to identify micro- and macrostructural features and functional scam stages, and used AntConc to plot high-frequency lexemes. The researchers disclosed their identity when scammers requested money.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The evidence is based on only seven letter sets, including two researcher-created mock exchanges, so findings may not represent the full diversity of scams, platforms, languages, offenders, or victim experiences. Analysis focuses on textual content and formal properties rather than verified victim outcomes or actual financial transfers. The authors’ deliberate participation may also differ from naturally occurring victim correspondence.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Further study should examine scammers’ linguistic patterns, malicious intent, and detrimental mental outcomes through active international interdisciplinary collaboration. The authors link this work to increased awareness of threats in global e-communication and safer social-media interaction.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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