Skip to main content

Does age matter? Examining seniors’ experiences of romance fraud

Cassandra Cross ; Thomas J. Holt (2025) — Security Journal

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1057/s41284-025-00486-0 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Age Correlates, AI-Enabled Fraud, Australia, Financial Loss, Older Adults, Personal Information Loss, Risk Factors, Romance Scams, Scamwatch, Senior Victims, Victim Characteristics, 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

            
The authors conducted a quantitative secondary analysis of de-identified Scamwatch romance-fraud complaints submitted from July 2018 through July 2019. After removing duplicates, sextortion cases, and records with missing/related data, they analysed 2,686 reports. A binary logistic regression model compared victims aged 65+ with younger victims using reported financial, banking-detail and personal-detail losses, contact channel, residence, and demographic/vulnerability indicators. Senior complainants were less likely to report losing personal information. Senior complainants were not more likely than other groups to report monetary losses. Scamwatch data are self-reported, unverified, optional-response online complaints and may not represent all romance-fraud victims.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Romance-fraud research has limited evidence on victim profiles, especially age-related demographic and situational correlates. The literature gives mixed findings on whether older adults face greater fraud risk or losses, and psychological correlates cannot be assessed with Scamwatch data. Evidence is also lacking on whether age shapes severity of harm, recovery, reporting willingness, and protection of personal information during online relationships.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The authors conducted a quantitative secondary analysis of de-identified Scamwatch romance-fraud complaints submitted from July 2018 through July 2019. After removing duplicates, sextortion cases, and records with missing/related data, they analysed 2,686 reports. A binary logistic regression model compared victims aged 65+ with younger victims using reported financial, banking-detail and personal-detail losses, contact channel, residence, and demographic/vulnerability indicators. Free-text reports were reviewed to identify monetary loss.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
Scamwatch data are self-reported, unverified, optional-response online complaints and may not represent all romance-fraud victims. Respondents received limited definitions or guidance, so measures may be inconsistently interpreted and recalled. The data cannot test psychological correlates, exclude cases with missing data, and are temporally limited to 2018–2019, before later increases in reported senior losses. Sampling only reporters is problematic because fraud is substantially underreported.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Replicate the analysis across senior populations and contexts; collect newer data to assess COVID-19 and rising senior losses; examine how age shapes the severity and recovery experience of romance fraud; and disentangle communication channels, relationship communications, and awareness of personal-information protection.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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