Skip to main content

SPEAKING BEHAVIOUR OF INTERNET DATING SCAMMERS

L. Kalytiuk (2018) — Studia Philologica

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

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


              
              

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 by L. Kalytiuk, published in 2018 in Studia Philologica, presents a study of the speaking behavior of internet dating scammers, specifically labeled as catfish. The analysis draws on real events from 2017 to 2019 and centers on how scammers’ discourse and interactions contribute to fraud. The author emphasizes the scammers’ conversational steps and language practices that accompany the progression of a purported romance. A key feature of the work is a proposed typology of dating scammers, including distinctions based on their experience and the use of fictional personal names, which the author suggests can serve as telltale signs for identifying dating scams. The article divides its examination into three domains—theories, facts, and conclusions—and highlights how scammers escalate contact through stages of romantic imitation and manipulation. The stages described include (1) initiating contact and presenting a favorable self-image, (2) developing the relationship while probing the victim’s financial status, and (3) a rapid move to visiting the victim, often followed by more distant or international travel. The paper notes a broader sequence in which language manipulation and financial probing lead to a perceived need for travel or meeting obligations, with potential unforeseen financial problems as the turning point. The author identifies these early stages as the most influential in driving the scam forward and frames the analysis around discourse and manipulation within the context of online dating fraud. Because the excerpt does not discuss methodological details beyond the described approach, no additional findings or limitations are stated here.

Identified Gaps

The article intentionally leaves scammers' manipulative shortcomings at the money-request stage unanalyzed. It also provides no systematic account of corpus size, sampling, participant characteristics, or outcome verification, limiting knowledge about how common the described patterns are.

Methods

The study uses critical discourse analysis with micro-level linguistic analysis and meso-level discursive-practice interpretation. It applies discourse-portraiting methods to messages and profiles collected by the author from Messenger, Facebook, Twoo, and Badoo, supplemented by sensitive materials shared by contacts and strangers. It qualitatively classifies scammers by apparent experience and traces a six-stage dating-scam scenario.

Limitations

Sources and illustrative cases are not referenced because the author promised to protect women's privacy. The paper does not report the number of cases, sampling criteria, analytic procedures, or independent verification of scammer identities. Several conclusions about scammers' age, status, skill, and organization are presented as the author's observations, so prevalence and generalizability cannot be assessed.

Future Work

Future research could examine the manipulative shortcomings that occur during money-request stages, which this article deliberately does not analyze to avoid offering scammers a practical guide.

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