Skip to main content

Estafa Amorosa con Manipulación Emocional en Contextos Digitales: Meta-análisis narrativo comparado y síntesis sistemática de evidencia

Marta Prieto Cazorla (2026) — Self-posted technical report; institutional imprimatur and peer review not established

Source monitoring coverage

Checked Oct 29, 2026 22:15 UTC — coverage limited.

Zenodo status/identity unavailable; a missing record or tombstone needs attributable metadata. No explicit source-update notice identified in the checked information. DataCite DOI/title identity unavailable or inconsistent. 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: 10.5281/zenodo.19654237 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   Global
Tags:   Digital Victimization, Emotional Manipulation, Financial Fraud, Prevention, Romance Scams, Underreporting, Victim Support
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

                

                    Unresolved
                

            

                    

                
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

                    

                    
The latest source-status check did not establish whether an incoming update notice exists. Missing metadata or provider access does not establish source validity.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    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

            
The publication presents a technical-academic report that undertakes a narrative, comparative meta-analysis and a systematic synthesis of evidence on romantic betrayal fraud conducted in digital contexts. Its stated aim is to create a reference framework to inform professionals who intervene with or study the phenomenon, and to provide a reliable source for practice and policy discussion. The authors explain that the evidence base is heterogeneous in definitions, metrics, time frames, units of analysis, and institutional framings, which motivates a method that emphasizes drawing parallels across families of indicators rather than forcing a single statistic. Methodologically, the work combines existing studies, regulatory and policing sources, academic reviews, and organizational materials to describe how romance scams unfold, how victims are drawn into the process, and how financial and psychosocial harms accumulate. It treats sources as distinct evidence strands with careful attention to what each measures—for instance, reporting channels, losses, and transacting patterns—while warning against conflating noncomparable data. The analysis foregrounds methodological cautions, including underreporting and terminological contamination, and it adopts a harmonization approach that emphasizes comparability of indicator families rather than numeric aggregation. Key implications highlighted include the need for specialized, multisectoral prevention and intervention in Spain, a strengthening of victim-centered responses that address financial, legal, psychological, and social needs, and closer coordination among platforms, financial institutions, and security agencies. The report also notes gaps in national statistical series for romance scams and calls for standardized protocols, gender-responsive approaches, and anticipatory risk assessment. Limitations acknowledged relate to data heterogeneity, partial coverage, and the non-prevalence focus of internal organizational data.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Key gaps include the lack of a uniform international taxonomy; heterogeneous measures of reports, victims, losses, and bank cases; substantial underreporting; limited comparable data on offenders; and weak country-specific measurement in Spain. The report also identifies conceptual overlap between romance fraud, investment fraud, catfishing, sextortion, and confidence scams.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This self-posted technical report uses a comparative narrative meta-analysis and systematic evidence synthesis, not statistical meta-analysis. It integrates official, regulatory, police, banking, academic, and association sources using an evidence hierarchy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, source labeling, and claimed double-checking of central assertions. It compares indicator families rather than pooling non-equivalent figures.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The evidence is highly heterogeneous in definitions, periods, counting units, and institutional frameworks. Sources measure reports, complaints, victims, losses, bank cases, service users, or academic samples rather than a common denominator. Underreporting, shame, self-selection, reporting and banking-coverage bias, terminological overlap, and limited offender data constrain inference. ANCEME service data are not population prevalence estimates.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should develop standardized, specific romance-scam classifications and comparable data systems, particularly in Spain. It should also address sparse offender data, distinguish hybrid investment and relationship fraud, and evaluate coordinated prevention and victim-support responses across platforms, banking, law enforcement, and specialist services.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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