Skip to main content

Hyperpersonal feedback and online romance fraud: an empirical examination

Fangzhou Wang ; Timothy Dickinson (2024) — Journal of Crime and Justice

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/0735648x.2024.2376700 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   Catfishing, Email Experiment, Feedback, Financial Reward, Hyperpersonal Communication, Prevention, Romance Scams, Self Presentation
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

            
This randomized experiment used sequential email exchanges with 94 active online romance fraudsters to test how feedback from a fictional target shaped offender communication. Guided by the hyperpersonal model of computer-mediated communication, the researchers varied the potential reward presented by the fictional victim and observed how fraudsters adjusted self-presentation and other message strategies. The analysis found that offender choices were shaped by a feedback loop between their messages and the impressions or rewards signaled by the target. The study provides rare behavioral evidence about reciprocal scammer-target interaction, although exchanges with a controlled fictional persona cannot reproduce every feature of genuine victimization or establish how all offenders behave.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited empirical knowledge of how online romance fraud is carried out, especially fraudsters’ communication strategies and the factors shaping them. Before this study, no research had empirically examined how reciprocal feedback between fraudsters and victims facilitates romance fraud within computer-mediated communication.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The researchers conducted a randomized email experiment with 94 active alleged romance fraudsters sourced from Stop-Scammers.com. Fraudsters posing as women were randomly assigned to three conditions involving different levels of promised and actual gift-card reward from a fictional male victim. Sequential standardized emails were coded for five self-presentation strategies and message length. Fisher’s exact tests, chi-square analysis, ANOVA, and Tukey comparisons assessed differences across conditions.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The authors note possible duplicate email addresses belonging to one person, potentially inaccurate listings on Stop-Scammers.com, and atypical responses if fraudsters viewed the emails as suspicious. Generalizability is unknown because the final sample was small (94 respondents), included only fraudsters presenting as women, and was constrained by time and resources. These limitations restricted available analytical techniques.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Replicate the experiment with a larger dataset of fraudster–victim conversations and extended contact periods. Use direct interviews with fraudsters to examine how they describe incentives and motivations, then compare interview findings with experimental results. Evaluate platform warnings, awareness campaigns, and victim verification practices as interventions.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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