Skip to main content

Datingfraude: van romantische droom naar financiële nachtmerrie

Miriam Wijkman ; Isabel Kooij (2018) — PROCES: Tijdschrift voor strafrechtspleging

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
Not applicable
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: Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.

  • Document analysis recorded:
  • Page record updated:
Automated checks

No public synopsis is displayed, so no synopsis check result applies to this page.

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.

Identified Gaps

The article identifies limited prior research on dating fraud, especially prevention. It also states that victims’ specific support needs were unknown because general victim-needs literature did not address dating fraud. Victims and service providers further reported the absence of a central knowledge center connecting relevant organizations.

Methods

The study conducted interviews from May to July 2016 with four dating-fraud victims and seven Victim Support Netherlands staff members. Victims were recruited through media and internet stories, a television-program applicant, and a Victim Support letter; staff were recruited through organizational intranet, team leaders, and LinkedIn. Interviews examined victim experiences, needs, and available support.

Limitations

The qualitative sample was very small: four victims and seven support staff. Victim recruitment was difficult: only three of five approached people participated, and five responses to a Victim Support letter were unusable because they concerned other internet fraud. Findings therefore provide exploratory accounts and may not represent the broader population of dating-fraud victims.

Future Work

Conduct additional research on preventing dating fraud, including ways to prevent it, raise public awareness of online-dating risks, and create barriers that make fraud more difficult. Evaluate whether dating sites should have an expanded educational role.

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