Skip to main content

A qualitative investigation of the emotional, physiological, financial, and legal consequences of online romance scams in the United States

Rebecca Cole (2024) — Journal of Economic Criminology

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1016/j.jeconc.2024.100108 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   United States
Tags:   Financial Harm, Financial Loss, Legal Consequences, Mental Health, Post Victimization Consequences, Qualitative Research, Romance Scams, United States, Victim Consequences
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 interpretive phenomenological study used 30-60 minute online interviews with 19 U.S. adults who had experienced online romance scams. Iterative analysis identified four consequence domains: mental health, including emotional dysregulation, treatment, and suicidal ideation; physiological health, including sleep and other bodily changes; financial harm, constrained autonomy, and debt repayment; and legal experiences, including negative police encounters, civil litigation, and vulnerability to revictimization. The findings show that consequences extend well beyond the transferred money and can interact across health, debt, and justice systems. The small self-selected sample was predominantly heterosexual, White, highly educated women, and retrospective accounts may reflect recall and social-desirability bias.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
U.S.-specific ORS scholarship remains limited, particularly on experiences after fraud revelation. Existing ORS conceptualizations end at scam discovery and omit extensive post-victimization consequences. The paper also identifies insufficient evidence on how law enforcement and health/help-service providers understand ORS, including gaps and biases that may reinforce stigma. Civil litigation consequences, including eviction and bankruptcy, are described as largely unexplored in prior research.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Interpretive phenomenological analysis, guided by hermeneutic phenomenology, examined perceived post-victimization consequences among 19 U.S. adult ORS victims. Participants were purposively recruited through professional, community, social-media, and peer-support channels. They completed 30–60 minute recorded Microsoft Teams semi-structured interviews; transcripts were deidentified and analyzed iteratively through repeated reading/listening, coding, grouping, and theme development. Rigor procedures included reflexive journaling, an audit trail, expert review, member checking, and transcript review by subject-matter experts.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The small, self-selected U.S. qualitative sample was predominantly heterosexual, White, highly educated women, limiting generalizability to all U.S. victims and victims outside the United States. The study may omit male, non-White, and LGBTQ+ experiences. Retrospective accounts are susceptible to recall bias, and stigma surrounding scams may produce social-desirability bias. The author also notes that the researcher’s social location may have encouraged participation by some people while discouraging others.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Further research should conceptualize and test “disenfranchised victimization”; compare ORS with economic intimate partner violence and coercive control; develop a holistic ORS model incorporating pre-scam experiences and post-victimization consequences; examine law-enforcement and health-provider knowledge and biases; and use stratified, diverse sampling to include underrepresented victim voices.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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