Skip to main content

What We Do in the Shadows: How does Experiencing Cybercrime Affect Response Actions & Protective Practices?

Magdalene Ng ; Maria Bada ; Kovila P. L. Coopamootoo (2023) — 2023 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy Workshops (EuroS&PW)

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: 10.1109/eurospw59978.2023.00077 (opens in a new tab)

Country:   United Kingdom
Tags:   Catfishing, Cybercrime Victimization, Protective Actions, Repeat Victimization, Reporting, Security And Privacy Practices, United Kingdom Survey
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 (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 paper reports a UK online survey (N = 605) examining how people’s experiences with cybercrime relate to their post-incident actions and protective practices. The authors identify eight cybercrimes reported by participants, including account compromise, malware, goods not received, credit card fraud, phishing, catfishing, and other scams. About half of respondents (319 participants, 52.7%) reported at least one cybercrime experience. The study also distinguishes between repeat or multiple incidents, noting that a substantial portion of those who experienced cybercrime reported repeated or multiple types of incidents. The researchers document the kinds of losses described (money, data, access, or accounts) and summarize typical responses, which range from contacting companies or banks to wiping or replacing devices and changing passwords. In addition to incident descriptions, the study catalogs a wide range of security and privacy practices named by participants. Tech-based protective actions (such as antivirus use, password changes, or device wiping) were commonly reported, while non-technological strategies (for example, seeking IT help or adjusting internet behavior) were also engaged, and a notable minority reported no protective action. The authors apply correspondence analysis to visualize associations between cybercrime experiences and response actions, and they run logistic regressions to explore how gender and other factors relate to the likelihood of using protective measures. Key findings suggest that those with repeated or multiple cybercrimes are more likely to seek help from third parties or institutions, and that men are more likely than women to take protective technology actions rather than doing nothing. The study emphasizes diverse, incident-specific patterns in protective behavior and highlights implications for improving cybercrime support and user-centered interventions.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited research comparing protective responses and security/privacy practices across cybercrime types. Repeat and multiple cybercrime victimization are described as substantially understudied. It also notes uncertainty about whether limited protective progress reflects users' responses, the availability and effectiveness of support mechanisms, or other factors. Research on catfishing is mentioned as limited within broader cross-cybercrime protective-action research.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The authors conducted a UK online survey in spring 2021 with 605 Prolific participants stratified by age and gender. Participants provided open-ended accounts of cybercrime experiences, losses, responses, and commonly used security and privacy methods, plus demographic data. Two coders conducted line-by-line content analysis of responses; the study then used correspondence analysis, chi-square tests, and logistic regression to examine associations among crime experiences, response actions, and security/privacy practices.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The Prolific sample may not generalize to the broader population. Findings rely mainly on self-reported experiences and participant memory, which may affect reliability. The survey focused on online fraud, scams, and cyberattacks, omitting online harassment, stalking, and newer online harms. Catfishing was one of eight cybercrime categories and represented only 2.6% of participants, limiting romance-scam-specific inference.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Conduct longitudinal research on how post-incident responses relate to long-term security and privacy behavior. Examine specific security and privacy technologies and strategies by cybercrime type. Develop and evaluate accessible, incident-specific security and privacy advice for detection and prevention. Study how victim reporting can better align with available reporting routes and how trust in authorities can be strengthened.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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