Skip to main content

Online Romance Scams: Perceptions on the Risks of Victimisation of LGBTQ+ Individuals on Dating Apps

Simangele Mkhize ; Candice Wepener (2025) — Gender questions

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: 10.25159/2412-8457/17195 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   Global
Tags:   Catfishing, Dating Safety, Lgbtq Users, Online Dating Platforms, Online Scamming, Online Victimization, South Africa, Stigma
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 reports a qualitative, exploratory study from South Africa that examines how LGBTQ+ individuals perceive victimisation risks on dating apps. The authors describe an approach involving five self-identified LGBTQ+ participants who were interviewed to capture their perspectives on online dating, platform use, and safety concerns. The study aims to identify the types of cybercrimes on dating sites, understand user views, and assess awareness of victimisation and prevention among LGBTQ+ users. Findings identify four overarching themes: how participants use dating apps; perceived risks linked to LGBTQ+ status on these platforms; unique vulnerabilities and needs of LGBTQ+ individuals; and levels of awareness regarding victimisation and prevention. Participants generally view dating apps as enabling connections and self-expression, yet they acknowledge substantial risks, including catfishing, scams, discrimination, harassment, and violence such as robbery, rape, or sexual assault. Some accounts illustrate direct victimisation, while others reflect awareness of reported incidents. The analysis emphasizes that stigma, homophobia, and heteronormative norms contribute to LGBTQ+ individuals’ vulnerability and influence help-seeking and reporting behaviors. The authors discuss limitations, notably the small, nonrandom sample, and frame the work as exploratory rather than generalizable. They call for destigmatization, broader representation within LGBTQ+ communities, and future research employing larger or mixed-method designs. The paper also contextualizes safety within social inclusion, suggesting media representation and intergroup contact as possible avenues to mitigate risk and improve trust in online platforms for LGBTQ+ users. The study presents a cautious, context-rich portrait of perceived online dating risks for LGBTQ+ individuals in South Africa.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
South African research on LGBTQ+ victimization on dating platforms is scarce. Existing dating-site research has mainly examined heterosexual relationships and, separately, unmarried women seeking love. The paper identifies sparse qualitative data on South African LGBTQ+ users' perceptions, limited evidence on platform-specific risks, and insufficient attention in law and prevention efforts to crimes targeting LGBTQ+ users.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Exploratory qualitative case study in South Africa. Five self-selected LGBTQ+ adults familiar with dating sites were purposively recruited through public LGBTQ+ social-media groups. Researchers conducted 30–45 minute semi-structured interviews via MS Teams, Zoom, or telephone, transcribed recordings, and applied Braun and Clarke's six-step thematic analysis. Four final themes concerned app use, dating-site risks, LGBTQ+ vulnerabilities and needs, and awareness of victimization.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The five-person sample was small, so findings are exploratory and not generalizable. Participants were self-selected rather than randomized, creating self-selection bias and potentially omitting important perspectives. The study recruited LGBTQ+ users familiar with dating sites rather than specifically recruiting direct victims, and findings chiefly reflect perceived risks rather than verified prevalence or incidence.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Conduct larger qualitative or mixed-methods research to improve generalizability; include representation across LGBTQ+ communities. Collect rigorous longitudinal data on dating-app use and associated risks. Study interventions that reduce stigma, including intergroup contact, media representation, queer education, and engagement with LGBTQ+ activist organizations.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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