Skip to main content

The Effects of Risky Behaviors and Social Factors on the Frequency of Fraud Victimization Among Known Victims

Marguerite DeLiema ; Siyu Gao ; Daniel Brannock ; Lynn Langton (2024) — Innovation in Aging

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
24
Average per calendar year
8.0

Count checked .

24 citations ÷ 3 calendar years (2024–2026). 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: 10.1093/geroni/igae111 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Consumer Education, Financial Fragility, Fraud Victimization Frequency, Loneliness, Measurement, Older Adults, Prevention, Risk Factors, Risky Behaviors, Romance Impersonation Scams, Routine Activity Theory, 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

            
This study applies Routine Activity Theory to understand how social and behavioral factors relate to how often older adults experience mass-marketing fraud. It uses a novel sample of adults aged 60 and older who were identified as known victims by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and who completed a survey about past-year fraud experiences, five types of scams, and related behaviors and characteristics. The researchers quantified self-reported fraud frequency on a log scale and examined how risky activities, financial risk preferences, loneliness, social engagement, and financial fragility relate to victimization frequency, while controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. The main findings partially align with RAT predictions. Engaging in certain risky routine activities—such as entering sweepstakes drawings and responding to unknown calls—was positively associated with a higher frequency of victimization. Similarly, having a greater willingness to take financial risks and reporting financial fragility were associated with more frequent fraud experiences. Loneliness showed a robust positive association with victimization frequency. By contrast, more frequent online activity was unexpectedly linked to fewer reported incidents, and indicators of capable guardianship, such as living with others or higher social engagement, showed no protective effect in this sample. Seeking financial input from trusted others did not consistently show protective effects across analyses; in some models, it related to higher victimization frequency. Across sociodemographic groups, few characteristics consistently predicted victimization frequency, though race/ethnicity and income showed some patterns. The authors conclude that loneliness, financial fragility, and risky financial preferences contribute to higher fraud exposure among older adults, suggesting targeted consumer education and safeguards for financially vulnerable and lonely individuals. The study notes limitations related to self-reported frequency and sample specificity, underscoring the need for tailored prevention efforts.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Fraud-risk research often relies on binary victimization measures, general-population or complaint samples that may miss highly vulnerable people, and self-reports affected by underreporting. The study identifies unresolved questions about fraud-type-specific social risk factors, cognitive impairment, the differing effects of online activity, and how to tailor prevention education for targeted older-adult groups.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The authors surveyed 823 U.S. adults aged 60 or older whose addresses were identified by the U.S. Postal Inspection Service as having responded to mail scam solicitations. A multimode mailed/web survey measured past-year frequency across five fraud categories and behavioral, financial, social, and demographic factors. Multiple linear regression modeled log-transformed total self-reported victimization frequency, with missing-data flags and mean imputation; complete-case and outlier checks assessed robustness.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The sample included only people identified through mail fraud and lacked a nonvictim or other-fraud comparison group, limiting generalizability. Victimization frequency was self-reported and may be reduced by guilt, shame, credulity, or poor recall. Because names were unavailable, the respondent could not be verified as the household member who paid scammers. The researchers lacked details on investigated scams and initial solicitation. The risky-routine-activity scale had low reliability, and non-delivery/nonresponse may have introduced selection bias.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Assess cognitive functioning among known fraud victims to determine whether impairment better indicates target suitability than age. Examine how loneliness and other social factors relate to specific fraud types, including threat-based scams. Clarify when online activity protects against fraud or increases risk. Test how to tailor fraud-awareness education for targeted populations, including minority older adults.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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