Skip to main content

Who can spot an online romance scam?

Monica T. Whitty (2019) — Journal of Financial Crime

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1108/jfc-06-2018-0053 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Dating Profiles, Human Detection, Impulsivity, Measurement, Offender Tactics, Online Dating Profiles, Prevention, Prevention Training, Psychology, Response Time, Risk Factors, Romance Scam Detection, Romance Scams, Romantic Beliefs, Scam Detection, UK Sample
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    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

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 study investigates factors that predict the ability to identify online romance scams, focusing on personality traits, belief systems, domain expertise, and response speed. In an online experiment, 261 participants were asked to judge whether a given profile represented a scam or was genuine. Beyond the labeling task, participants completed a set of assessments that captured their personality characteristics and belief orientations, and they answered demographic and descriptive questions. Response latency was recorded to capture how quickly participants made their judgments. The combined data were used to assess which individual differences and behavioral measures best distinguish fraudulent profiles from legitimate ones and to explore how these indicators relate to detection accuracy in a realistic online evaluation context. Results indicated that certain combinations of traits and experiences predicted greater accuracy in identifying scams. Specifically, lower scores on romantic belief scales, higher levels of impulsivity, and greater consideration of future consequences were associated with improved discrimination between fake and real profiles. Prior exposure to a romance scam also emerged as a positive predictor, as did longer response times during the evaluation task. Despite these associations, the overarching finding was that detecting romance scams remains a challenging task, with accuracy limited by the subtlety of scam cues and the variability of profiles.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Before this study, no research had tested whether psychological characteristics predict recognition of fake versus genuine online dating profiles. The stage model of romance scams had not empirically tested whether motivation to find an ideal partner explains susceptibility, and did not include the initial profile-authenticity decision. The authors also identify limited knowledge about novice versus expert deception detection in online settings.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
An online Qualtrics study recruited 261 UK adults who had used dating and/or social-networking sites. Participants classified 20 randomly presented dating profiles (10 fake, 10 genuine), then completed demographic items, Romantic Beliefs, UPPS-R Impulsivity, and Consideration of Future Consequences scales. The study measured prior scam-spotting and cumulative response time. Forced-entry multiple regression tested whether these variables predicted profile-classification accuracy.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The study used a UK online-panel sample and a constrained survey task involving static profiles rather than real-world interaction, communication, grooming, or financial requests. The regression explained 13% of accuracy variance, indicating substantial unexplained variation. These limitations are cautious inferences from the sampling frame, study procedure, and reported model fit.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Test whether interactive scam-detection exercises improve accuracy more effectively than information-based e-safety guidance. Evaluate training that encourages users to take time reviewing profiles and examine whether this reduces romance-scam vulnerability. Further examine why impulsivity was associated with greater accuracy despite the opposite prediction.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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