Skip to main content

Romance Scam Victimization: A Survey-Based Examination of Financial, Psychological, and Reporting Factors

Herrera, LD (2025) — 2025 13th International Symposium on Digital Forensics and Security (ISDFS)

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1109/isdfs65363.2025.11012081 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Proceedings Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Financial Loss, Formal Reporting, Help Seeking, Informal Support, Measurement, Older Adults, Psychological Distress, Psychology, Romance Scams, Suicidal Ideation, Underreporting, Victim Assistance, Victim Experience
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

            
Romance scams constitute a rising form of cybercrime in which perpetrators cultivate deceitful romantic relationships to extract financial resources, causing substantial economic and psychological harm while remaining markedly underreported. Official figures from 2022 indicate that 1.3 billion dollars were lost to romance scams in the United States, though the actual toll is believed to be higher. The study summarized here investigates this phenomenon by examining how victims experience financial and psychological consequences, identifying patterns in victimization, and describing barriers to seeking help as well as how victims perceive the assistance they receive. Drawing on survey responses from 366 victims, the research analyzes both financial losses and psychological impact, along with reporting patterns, obstacles to obtaining help, and victims’ views on the help obtained. A notable portion of participants, 60.9 percent, did not pursue assistance from any source, whether formal institutions or personal networks. A chi-square test with 1 degree of freedom (N = 366) yielded a statistic of 13.94 and a p-value less than 0.001, indicating that those who rely exclusively on informal support are significantly less likely to engage formal reporting mechanisms. In addition, the results show an association between the magnitude of financial losses and the prevalence of suicidal ideation, with greater losses linked to higher rates of such thoughts. The findings suggest that enhancing the performance and the perceived usefulness of formal institutions could increase their utilization, improve reporting accuracy, and lead to better outcomes for victims. The authors recommend further research to evaluate potential improvements, including the establishment of a centralized victim assistance organization, as a means to improve victim outcomes and mitigate both financial and psychological consequences.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The specific effect of informal assistance on formal-reporting decisions among romance-scam victims is understudied. The paper also identifies unanswered questions about comparative underreporting versus other frauds, mechanisms through which manipulation, self-blame, and cynicism affect disclosure, financial-status differences in psychological impact, and whether reporting choices reflect preference or adverse experiences. Evidence for the observed loss–suicidal-ideation association was descriptive rather than statistically confirmed.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
A structured, predominantly closed-ended SurveyMonkey survey examined US adult self-identified romance-scam victims’ demographics, victimization frequency, losses, psychological consequences, transfer methods, help-seeking, reporting, and perceived helpfulness. Facebook advertising recruited participants during August 2024; 366 eligible respondents completed the survey. Responses included preset categories and four-point helpfulness ratings; optional open-text responses were coded quantitatively rather than systematically analyzed. Analyses reported descriptive statistics, correlations, and a chi-square test of informal versus formal help-seeking.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Self-reported responses may involve recall bias, exaggeration, misinterpretation, and self-selection bias, limiting representativeness. The survey had no incident time limit, so older events may have reduced memory accuracy. Helpfulness was respondent-defined and therefore variable across participants; its four-point scale lacked a neutral midpoint and may have inflated positive ratings. Open-ended answers were not systematically analyzed. One internally inconsistent high-loss response was omitted from loss analyses.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Test methods to improve formal and informal support accessibility; compare romance-scam underreporting with other fraud and identify causes; assess effects of emotional manipulation, self-blame, and law-enforcement cynicism on disclosure; examine whether financial status moderates psychological effects of loss; determine whether reporting-channel choices are intentional or shaped by negative experiences; test whether educating family and friends increases formal reporting; and evaluate feasibility, trust-building, and integration of a centralized victim-assistance organization.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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