Skip to main content

自我服务偏差与信念固着对"杀猪盘"诈骗的启示

Jin Jiayu (金嘉雨) (2025) — 社会科学与教育

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: 10.64083/sse2520604 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   China
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Anti Fraud Intervention, Belief Perseverance, China, Pig Butchering Fraud, Romance Scams, Self Serving Bias, Victim Psychology
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 (2)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
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 examines how self-serving bias and belief perseverance illuminate victims’ experiences in “pig-butchering” telephone and online dating scams, arguing that psychological perception processes help explain why people fall for and persist in these schemes. The author links core social-psychological concepts to the crime type, noting that victims’ judgments are shaped by subjective factors such as illusory universality and uniqueness, optimistic biases, and altered interpretations of risk, which can hinder accurate assessments of a scammer’s identity and intentions. Drawing on literature and domestic data, the study identifies four scam types commonly observed in pig-butchering cases: direct financial extraction, inducement through discounts or vouchers, investment-type fraud promising stocks or digital assets, and business-advantage schemes masquerading as investment solicitations. It argues that victims’ self-serving attributions, excessive optimism, and illusory control contribute to continued engagement, even after authorities or relatives intervene. The narrative emphasizes that belief perseverance makes victims slow to acknowledge deception and resistant to corrective information, potentially leading to repeated losses or trauma, including PTSD-like symptoms. In terms of prevention and intervention, the author proposes a blend of technology-assisted and human-centered strategies. Suggestions include using AI-enabled public messaging to induce cognitive shifts, training anti-fraud personnel in psychology-informed communication, and fostering cross-sector collaboration to monitor risk signals and deliver targeted warning messages. The discussion frames these measures as ways to disrupt victims’ perceptual biases and strengthen deterrence, while acknowledging that current research on victims’ perceptual processes remains limited. The article closes by situating these insights within ongoing efforts to modernize anti-fraud initiatives alongside rapid technological change.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies an imbalance in existing research: studies largely analyze offender processes and tactics, while victim psychology receives insufficient attention. It also states that single-type studies are common and whole-case analyses are comparatively scarce. The article positions victim perception, especially self-serving bias and belief perseverance, as an underused perspective.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This is a literature-based conceptual analysis. The author collected, read, and analyzed Chinese and international literature on pig-butchering fraud and social psychology, then applied the concepts of self-serving bias and belief perseverance to four stated fraud types. The paper develops prevention and intervention recommendations from this theoretical synthesis.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The author acknowledges that only a limited number of psychological concepts are discussed, so the analysis cannot accurately reconstruct victims’ entire perceptual process in these cases. The study is literature-based and does not report original victim, offender, platform, or intervention data; consequently, its proposed psychological mechanisms and prevention measures are not empirically tested in the supplied text.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should examine a broader set of psychological constructs to reconstruct victims’ perceptions across the full fraud trajectory. Empirical testing is needed to assess whether self-serving bias and belief perseverance predict susceptibility, resistance to intervention, repeat transfers, and post-fraud outcomes.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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