Skip to main content

Risk factors for fraud victimization: The role of socio-demographics, personality, mental, general, and cognitive health, activities, and fraud knowledge

Luka Koning ; Marianne Junger ; Bernard Veldkamp (2023) — International Review of Victimology

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
55
Average per calendar year
13.8

Count checked .

55 citations ÷ 4 calendar years (2023–2026). The first and last years may be partial. This is a lifetime average, not a year-by-year citation history.

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: 10.1177/02697580231215839 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Netherlands
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Dating Fraud, Exposure, Fraud Knowledge, Fraud Victimization, Internet Use, Measurement, Prevention, Psychology, Risk Factors, Susceptibility, 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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    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 study seeks to understand why some individuals are victimized by fraud while others are not, by examining a broad set of personal risk factors in a Dutch sample. Using a representative, longitudinal design, the authors model fraudvictimization as a two-stage process: exposure to a fraud attempt and susceptibility to victimization among those exposed. They analyze three outcomes—victimization, susceptibility, and exposure—across multiple fraud categories, leveraging an exhaustive fraud taxonomy and imputing missing data to preserve participants. The research questions focus on the roles of socio-demographics, personality, mental and general health, routine Internet activities, and prior fraud knowledge. Across the analyses, there are few robust predictors of fraud victimization. Men show no difference in victimization but experience higher exposure and lower susceptibility in certain categories. Older age predicts less victimization and less exposure in several categories, while higher education predicts greater exposure to several fraud types. A non-Western immigrant background stands out as a strong risk factor, predicting more victimization, higher susceptibility, and greater exposure in multiple categories. Overall, personality factors have limited predictive power, with self-control showing the clearest associations: higher self-control relates to less victimization, lower susceptibility, and, in some cases, reduced exposure, though temporal ordering limits causal inferences. The authors conclude that fraud knowledge—targeted consumer education—may be a promising way to reduce susceptibility, given the general finding that individual-level prevention is limited. They emphasize that prevention may rely more on platforms and providers, rather than solely on changing individual traits, and acknowledge limitations related to multiple testing, measurement timing, and self-report. The study thus provides a cautious, source-grounded view of who is at risk and where prevention efforts might be most effectively directed.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Prior fraud-victimization research has been hindered by inconsistent and outdated fraud taxonomies, failure to distinguish exposure from susceptibility, nonrepresentative samples, and cross-sectional designs. The paper also identifies limited research on the effects of self-esteem and health-risk behaviors on fraud victimization. Evidence on immigrants as crime victims is limited, and cognitive measures may be too narrow to assess fraud vulnerability adequately.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study linked a 2021 Dutch fraud-victimization survey to longitudinal LISS panel background data, primarily measured before 2020 fraud events. A representative final sample of 2,864 adults completed a taxonomy-based survey covering multiple fraud categories, including dating fraud. Binary logistic regressions separately modeled victimization, susceptibility among exposed respondents, and exposure. Models adjusted for basic demographics; missing data were multiply imputed, and q values controlled false discoveries across 990 tests.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Dating-fraud estimates are based on few events: 20 victims and 61 exposed respondents. More generally, low event counts reduced statistical power. Susceptibility models used only exposed participants and may not generalize to the full population. Observational data cannot establish causality; self-control and digit-span measures followed possible fraud events. Some background data were missing and imputed. Fraud experiences were self-reported and may reflect unrecognized victimization, nonreporting, or reporting differences.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Further research should examine why online shopping predicts victimization across multiple fraud forms, why social-media use is associated with lower charity-fraud victimization and susceptibility, and how fraud knowledge affects victimization while accounting for possible reporting differences. Research should also further explore mental-health relationships and use broader cognitive measures. For dating fraud specifically, larger samples are needed because only 20 respondents reported victimization.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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