Skip to main content

“Hello, is this Anna?”: Unpacking the Lifecycle of Pig-Butchering Scams

Rajvardhan Oak ; Zubair Shafiq (2025) — SOUPS2025 conference paper, arXivv2May24

Source monitoring coverage

Checked Oct 30, 2026 19:15 UTC — no notice found.

DataCite identity and deposited events checked. DataCite incoming relationships checked. arXiv submission history checked. No explicit source-update notice identified in the checked information. Coverage is incomplete and does not certify source validity. Routine version changes do not trigger writing.

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

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: 10.48550/arxiv.2503.20821 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   Global
Tags:   Cryptocurrency Fraud, Investment Fraud, Pig Butchering Scams, Romance Scams, Scam Lifecycle, Secondary Scams, Social Engineering, Victim Interviews
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 publication presents a first qualitative study of pig-butchering scams, defined as a complex, long-form form of online fraud that blends romance-like grooming with fraudulent investment schemes. The authors aim to illuminate how scammers systematically build trust and manipulate victims over weeks or months, culminating in substantial financial losses. The study is based on in-depth semi-structured interviews with 26 victims, offering first-hand accounts of the emotional and financial dynamics involved. The authors frame the work as an end-to-end, user-centered analysis of the scam lifecycle and its psychological toll, while situating it within broader online-fraud literature. The authors identify a seven-stage lifecycle that they say characterizes most pig-butchering schemes: The Lure, where unsolicited messages initiate contact; The Bond, in which romance or business rapport is developed via daily communication, mirroring and personal storytelling; The Bait, which introduces cryptocurrency investment as an exclusive opportunity with claimed expertise and fabricated profit proof; The Feed, in which victims gain access to fraudulent platforms and are eased into larger investments; The Squeeze, where time pressure and heightened incentives escalate commitment; The Cut, during which access to accounts is blocked and withdrawal is discouraged; and The Encore, in which additional scams or “recovery” schemes are attempted. Across these stages, the paper highlights tactics such as social-media fakery, fake testimonials, manipulated interfaces, and staged success narratives to sustain trust and extract funds. The analysis also documents the broader consequences for victims, including emotional distress, shame, and reporting barriers, and it discusses implications for platforms, financial institutions, and law enforcement. The authors acknowledge limitations related to the small, retrospective, self-reported sample and call for cross-border cooperation and improved detection and reporting mechanisms, as well as reframing terminology to reduce stigma. Overall, the work provides a structured, victim-informed portrait of how pig-butchering scams unfold and persist.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies sparse scholarship on pig-butchering specifically. Prior work largely addresses broader online fraud, romance scams, investment fraud, social engineering, or prevention and detection. It identifies a lack of detailed victim-centered understanding of attack anatomy, offender strategies, and distinctive psychological manipulation, as well as a lack of systematic qualitative victim accounts.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Researchers conducted online, semi-structured Zoom interviews with 26 eligible English-speaking pig-butchering victims aged 21 or older, recruited through X, mailing lists, and scam-focused Reddit communities. Interviews lasted 38–55 minutes and were documented through detailed notes rather than recordings. Two coders independently open-coded accounts, reconciled a shared codebook, recoded the data, and clustered themes after achieving Cohen’s kappa greater than 0.8.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The 26-person qualitative sample may not represent experiences across wider demographics or regions. Recruitment through online outreach and eligibility verification may further limit representativeness. Findings rely on retrospective self-reports, so recall bias and participant reluctance could affect accuracy. Interviews were not recorded or transcribed, which may limit the fidelity and auditability of the qualitative record.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future studies should broaden the sample across demographics and regions to test and extend the qualitative findings. Research should also examine and evaluate the proposed platform, financial-institution, law-enforcement, and terminology interventions.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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