Skip to main content

Is There a Scam for Everyone? Psychologically Profiling Cyberscam Victims

Whitty, Monica Therese (2020) — European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1007/s10610-020-09458-z (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   Cyberscam Victimization, Impulsivity, Neuroticism, Personality Traits, Romance Scams, Scam Specific Prevention, United Kingdom, Victim Profiling
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

            
This paper investigates whether there are psychological and demographic differences between cyberscam victims and non-victims, and whether these differences vary by the type of scam (consumer, charity, investment, and romance). Using a large UK sample recruited from Qualtrics (n = 11,780 after cleaning), the study measured impulsivity, locus of control, and neuroticism, along with age, gender, and education. Victim status was determined by self-reported experience with an Internet-related scam. The authors test hypotheses about general victimhood and then examine differences across the most common scam types. In the general analysis, impulsivity and neuroticism emerged as significant predictors of victimhood, indicating that more impulsive and emotionally unstable individuals were more likely to report having been scammed. Contrary to some expectations, age did not predict victimhood, while gender and education showed effects in the opposite direction of some prior findings: men and more educated individuals were more likely to report victimization in this sample. The overall model explained a small portion of the variance (Nagelkerke R2 around 0.06). A second analysis compared scam types and found meaningful differences: investment scam victims tended to be older, more likely to be male, and scored higher on internal locus of control; consumer scam victims were more likely to be female and less educated. Across scam types, there were also notable gender patterns, with women more represented in consumer scams and men more represented in investment scams. The study concludes that a single, uniform profile of cyberscam victims is limited; distinct scam types attract somewhat different victim profiles. Limitations acknowledged include a lack of data on routine activities and modest effect sizes, suggesting cautious interpretation and a need for further research to refine targeted prevention and training programs.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited evidence on who is susceptible to different cyberscam types and criticizes treating victims as a homogeneous group. It notes that prior work often measures responding to scam messages rather than actually sending money. It also identifies unexamined online routine activities as a missing explanatory factor.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
A UK Qualtrics panel survey recruited 12,060 participants; 11,780 remained after data cleaning. Binary logistic regression compared cyberscam victims (n=1,057) with non-victims (n=10,723) using age, gender, education, impulsivity, locus of control, and neuroticism. A victim-only subset (n=531) compared consumer, charity, investment, and romance scam victims using multivariate analysis and chi-square tests.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The study did not measure participants’ routine activities or exposure to high-risk online behaviors. Its explanatory models had low-to-small effect sizes, including a logistic-regression Nagelkerke R² of 0.06 and a multivariate effect size of η²=0.06. The romance-scam subgroup was relatively small (n=83), and the cross-sectional self-report design cannot establish causation.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Replicate and refine scam-specific victim profiles; examine online routine activities alongside dispositional characteristics; compare investor victims with investor non-victims; and develop prevention training tailored to scam type, emotional instability, impulsivity, and relevant demographic groups.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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