Skip to main content

Distort, Extort, Deceive and Exploit: Exploring the Inner Workings of a Romance Fraud

Elisabeth Carter (2020) — The British Journal of Criminology

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:
  • 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

A qualitative single-case study used discourse analysis and narrative frameworks to analyse 79,616 words of WhatsApp communications from a six-month romance fraud. The victim voluntarily supplied messages after informed consent; data were ethically approved and anonymized. Social engineering reinforced credibility, weakened support links, and disguised money requests. The case involved six months of communication and GBP 60,000 extorted from the victim before she ended contact. The study analyses one romance fraud case, so its detailed insights may not represent all romance-fraud interactions.

Identified Gaps

Romance fraud has received little academic exploration. Existing work primarily addresses fraud generally, psychological impact, or victims’ accounts, while perpetrators’ language, the dynamics after contact, and the inner workings of fraudsters’ tactics remain underexplored. The paper also identifies limited evidence for designing effective barriers to victimization and remediating harm.

Methods

A qualitative single-case study used discourse analysis and narrative frameworks to analyse 79,616 words of WhatsApp communications from a six-month romance fraud. The victim voluntarily supplied messages after informed consent; data were ethically approved and anonymized. Analysis of nine extracts and 26 quotations examined three inductively developed themes: early false-information ‘set-up and drip feed’; visceral, health-focused language; and isolation from family and friends.

Limitations

The study analyses one romance fraud case, so its detailed insights may not represent all romance-fraud interactions. Communications were obtained through self-selecting victim contact after media exposure, following unsuccessful access attempts through agencies and police. The written WhatsApp data also lack vocal tone and other non-verbal interactional cues.

Future Work

Develop awareness and prevention strategies using insights into interaction and decision-making in coercive, reality-distorting environments, rather than focusing narrowly on requests for money. The paper also suggests viewing romance fraud through a domestic violence and abuse lens to deepen understanding of grooming and manipulation.

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