Living Evidence Synthesis

Victim Characteristics

Victim Characteristics in Romance Scams: Evidence Synthesis

Published Sep 6, 2026 Updated Sep 6, 2026 Romance Scam Research Center

Publications: 30
Evidence statements: 93
Cited sources: 30
Synthesis version: 71

Transparency

Evidence and review status

This Living Evidence Synthesis is AI-generated and machine-checked. Administrative approval is separate from content review; no human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

Source basis: Downloaded PDFs
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: This version used preserved evidence from 30 approved publications with downloaded source PDFs.

Source snapshot generated: Sep 6, 2026
AI-generated page content: The executive summary and synthesis body were AI-generated from the preserved evidence snapshot.

Synthesis generated: Sep 6, 2026

Public page updated: Sep 6, 2026
Automated checks: 17 recorded checks passed for the linked synthesis version. 1 nonblocking warning was also recorded.

Checks completed: Sep 6, 2026
Administrative approval: An authenticated administrator released this page publicly. Publication does not by itself mean the content received expert review.

Published by administrator: Aug 10, 2026
Human content review: No separate human content-review decision is recorded for the linked synthesis.
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.

Reviewed evidence describes a heterogeneous, non-representative literature that supports context‑sensitive claims about who appears in complaint, help‑seeker, platform, and purposive-study samples but does not justify a single, general population victim profile. High-quality systematic and scoping reviews converge on three primary conclusions: (1) samples are diverse and frequently self-selected or complaint‑derived, limiting population inference; (2) recurring descriptive patterns appear (notably a substantial share of middle‑aged or older adults and many female reporters in multiple datasets), but these patterns vary by scam subtype, contact channel, geography, and study recruitment; and (3) psychological and situational themes (loneliness, recent relationship disruption, romantic idealization, willingness to self‑disclose) appear repeatedly in qualitative and survey reports as influential in narratives of how scams unfold, though causality and generalizability are not established. Recommendations in the literature emphasize subtype‑sensitive, incident‑verified, and representative or probability‑based sampling, standardized measures of victim attributes, and improved offender‑side and longitudinal research. ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]}

Scope, sampling frames, and methodological character

Primary empirical work reflects the reviews: many studies analyze administrative complaint datasets, recruit via support forums or social‑media advertising, or use small purposive interview series. Authors repeatedly warn that observed demographic compositions chiefly describe sampled reporters or help‑seekers and that underreporting, optional fields, and unverified self‑reports restrict their generalizability. ^{[4] [6] [5]}

Researchers analyzed 15,575 cleaned Action Fraud romance-fraud victim records over a three-year period (15,575 victims, or units of analysis, were left to analyze for the 3-year period). ^[5]

Sex and gender patterns

Multiple complaint‑based and interview datasets show a sizable share of female reporters or interviewees; several studies and reviews therefore describe an overrepresentation of women in many sampled romance‑scam datasets, particularly in Western complaint and support‑site samples used for qualitative research and help provision. ^{[6] [11] [12] [13] [14]}

At the same time, sex composition varies substantially by subtype and sample frame. For example, a dedicated analysis of sextortion-related reports found a majority of complainants were male and skewed young, while pig‑butchering/crypto and some regional datasets report different sex proportions and age bands among victims. ^{[15] [16] [14]}

Several authors explicitly call for more research on male victims and same‑sex victims because the literature historically emphasized heterosexual female victims and often excludes or underreports other groups, limiting understanding of gendered patterns across contexts and scam types. These recommendations appear recurrently in recent systematic mappings and editorial syntheses. ^{[17] [2] [18]}

Age distributions, subtype heterogeneity, and contact channel

A repeated descriptive pattern across complaint and many interview samples is substantial representation of middle‑aged and older adults (commonly described as roughly 40–69 or 45–74 in multiple datasets). Several national complaint analyses and qualitative series document that these age groups account for a large share of reported losses or in‑depth interview participants. ^{[19] [6] [7] [12] [8]}

At the same time, other datasets and subtype analyses show younger adults as prominent victims in particular variants: for example, several reports and review syntheses identify romance‑baiting or pig‑butchering complainants concentrated among younger adult bands (e.g., 25–34 or 30–49) in specific national datasets. Thus age patterns vary by scam subtype, geography, and the reporting mechanism used. ^{[14] [20]}

Authors and reviews emphasize that cross‑study age differences frequently reflect sampling frame, subtype definition, and reporting behavior rather than definitive susceptibility: reviewers explicitly note that current evidence cannot provide precise, population‑general age‑risk estimates without representative, incident‑verified designs. ^{[1] [2] [21]}

Socioeconomic, educational, and psychosocial features

Findings on education and socioeconomic indicators are mixed across the corpus. Multiple studies and syntheses report victims who are relatively well educated or professionally employed (including some multivariable results linking higher education to reported victimhood), while other work documents highly heterogeneous victim profiles across contexts. ^{[22] [7] [23] [24]}

Qualitative and survey research repeatedly identifies psychosocial themes common in victim narratives: romantic idealization, investment of trust, social isolation or recent relationship disruption, loneliness, and willingness to self‑disclose online. These themes help explain how victims describe grooming and decision points in scams but do not demonstrate causal predisposition. ^{[25] [9]}

Multiple studies report that romance-scam victims are often middle-aged and more highly educated, and that increased risk is associated with traits including impulsivity, low self-control, addiction-prone or addictive dispositions, sensation seeking, neuroticism, and a tendency to idealize romantic relationships; one report also characterizes many victims as women with impulsive and addictive dispositions. ^{[22] [26] [27]}

Subtype, contact channel, and geographic clustering

Evidence shows meaningful heterogeneity by scam subtype and contact channel: some subtypes (for example, sextortion and romance baiting versus traditional romance fraud or pig‑butchering/crypto‑investment) display different age and gender compositions in complaint and investigative datasets, indicating subtype‑specific victim patterns in the reviewed records. ^{[14] [15]}

Geographic analyses of administrative reports identify concentration of reported victims in chronic hot‑spot postcodes and social‑geodemographic segmentation; authors note these hot‑spot results were calculated using absolute counts (not population‑adjusted rates) and caution about ecological and classification limitations when using proprietary segmentation data for targeting. ^[5]

Researchers analyzed 15,575 cleaned Action Fraud romance‑fraud victim records over a three‑year period. Half of reported romance‑fraud victims resided in 17% of the locations where the fraud occurred. In Australia, losses to traditional romance fraud were highest among adults over 45. ^{[5] [14]}

Limitations, evidence gaps, and implications

Key gaps explicitly noted in the reviewed evidence include underrepresentation of male and same‑sex victim experiences in many studies, geographic skew toward Western samples that may undercount minors or youth experiences in other contexts, and the need to verify complaints against confirmed incidents where possible. ^{[17] [28] [29]}

Authors and reviewers further identify a limited empirical base on psychological predictors, inconsistent demographic findings across contexts, and inadequate data for reliable population-level prevalence or regional victimization-rate estimation because of underreporting and unverified self-reports. ^{[4] [1] [30]}

Given the current evidence, practitioners and policymakers should treat commonly repeated sample features (for example, frequent appearance of middle‑aged women in complaint datasets) as informative for service design and targeted outreach in similar contexts but not as definitive indicators of intrinsic vulnerability across populations or scam subtypes. ^{[6] [14] [1]}

Recommendations and research priorities (evidence‑linked)

Several systematic reviews and mapping exercises explicitly recommend further research to investigate victim and offender profiles across diverse backgrounds and contexts, and to address sparse and conflicting evidence on demographic patterns such as age and gender across scam types and geographies. ^[2]

Studies exploring the socio-demographic and psychological factors associated with scammers and victims were limited. ^[1]

References

This AI-assisted synthesis is based on reviewed evidence records. It may contain errors or omissions. Follow the publication and DOI links, consult the original works, and make your own judgment about the evidence.

Topic evidence hub

Explore the Victim Characteristics evidence base

This synthesis version cites 30 public RSRC records. The broader Library currently contains 154 approved publications mapped to this topic. Newly mapped publications can appear in the topic collection before they are incorporated into a later synthesis version.

Browse 154 topic publications

View 30 cited publication records from synthesis version 71

Citation 1
Tainted Love: a Systematic Literature Review of Online Romance Scam Research
Bilz, A.; Shepherd, LA.; Johnson, GI. (2023) Interacting with Computers
Citation 2
Mapping romance fraud research – a systematic review
Kassem, R.; Carter, E. (2023) Journal of Financial Crime
Citation 3
Catfish: Exploring the Individual Predictors and Interpersonal Characteristics of Deceptive Online Romantic Relationships
Campbell, Kelly; Parker, M. L. (2022) Contemporary Family Therapy
Citation 4
The online dating romance scam: causes and consequences of victimhood
Buchanan, T.; Whitty, MT. (2013) Psychology, Crime & Law
Citation 5
Dating hot spot to fraud hot spot: Targeting the social characteristics of romance fraud victims in England and Wales
Sinclair, R.; Bland, M.; Savage, B. (2023) Criminology & Public Policy
Citation 6
“I knew it was a scam”: Understanding the triggers for recognizing romance fraud
Cross, C. (2023) Criminology & Public Policy
Citation 7
Do You Love Me? Psychological Characteristics of Romance Scam Victims
Whitty, MT. (2017) Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking
Citation 8
The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims – both financial and non-financial
Whitty, MT.; Buchanan, T. (2015) Criminology & Criminal Justice
Citation 9
Understanding Romance Scammers Through the Lens of Their Victims: Qualitative Modeling of Risk and Protective Factors in the Online Context
Wang, F.; Topalli, V. (2022) American Journal of Criminal Justice
Citation 10
The Scammers Persuasive Techniques Model: Development of a Stage Model to Explain the Online Dating Romance Scam
Whitty, MT. (2013) British Journal of Criminology
Citation 11
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)
Citation 12
Romance Scam: Victim Manipulation and Human Trafficking
Grace Carvalho Fernandes, S.; BASTOS DO NASCIMENTO, V.; Castelo Branco Do Nascimento, V. (2023) Anais do Congresso Internacional de Relações Internacionais do Amazonas: a Amazônia no mundo e o mundo na Amazônia
Citation 13
Persuasive Schemes for Financial Exploitation in Online Romance Scam: An Anatomy on Sha Zhu Pan (杀猪盘) in China
Wang, F.; Zhou, X. (2022) Victims & Offenders
Citation 14
Romance baiting, cryptorom and ‘pig butchering’: an evolutionary step in romance fraud
Cross, C. (2023) Current Issues in Criminal Justice
Citation 15
“If U Don't Pay they will Share the Pics”: Exploring Sextortion in the Context of Romance Fraud
Cross, Cassandra; Holt, Karen; O'Malley, Roberta Liggett (2024) Scams, Cons, Frauds, and Deceptions
Citation 16
A new type of victim? Profiling survivors of modern slavery in the online scam industry in Southeast Asia
Franceschini, Ivan; Li, Ling; Hu, Yige; Bo, Mark (2024) Trends in Organized Crime
Citation 17
Relationship fraud: Romance, friendship and family frauds
Button, Mark; Carter, Elisabeth (2024) Journal of Economic Criminology
Citation 18
Examining fifty cases of convicted online romance fraud offenders
Soares, Adebayo Benedict; Lazarus, Suleman (2024) Criminal Justice Studies
Citation 19
A Study on Romance Scam : The Current Situation and Effective Countermeasures
Kim, Hyo-shin; Seo, Jun-bae (2019) The Police Science Journal
Citation 20
Beyond Dollars: Unveiling the Deeper Layers of Online Romance Scams Introducing “Body Scam”
Amirkhani, Sima; Alizadeh, Fatemeh; Randall, Dave; Stevens, Gunnar (2024) Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Citation 21
Safeguarding Retirement in the Age of Scams
DeLiema, Marguerite (2024) SSRN Electronic Journal
Citation 22
Online Dating Scam Victims Psychological Impact Analysis
Wang, C. (2022) Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences
Citation 23
Paradoks Hukum Rekayasa Sosial Pig Butchering Scam Dalam Investasi Digital Aset Kripto
Ashibly, Ashibly (2025) Jurnal Hukum IUS QUIA IUSTUM
Citation 24
Pig Butchering Scams as Cyber-Enabled Financial Crime: A Scoping Review of Dimensions, Modus Operandi, and Victim-Offender Dynamics
Gujarathi, Palak; Verma, Shankey; Nair, Vipin Vijay (2026) Deviant Behavior
Citation 25
Devices of Textual Illusion: Victimization in Romance Scam E-Letters
Dreijers, G.; Rudziša, V. (2020) Research in Language
Citation 26
Romance Scams: Romantic Imagery and Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation
Chuang, JY. (2021) Frontiers in Psychiatry
Citation 27
Romance Scam as one of the main Challenges of cybercrime
Khukhunaishvili, Dina (2024)
Citation 28
My Parents Expectations Were Overwhelming: Online Dating Romance Scams Targeting Minors in Iran Through Exploitation of Parental Pressure
Sima Amirkhani; Mahla Fatemeh Alizadeh; Dave Randall; Gunnar Stevens; Douglas Zytko (2026) Publication Server of Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences (Bonn-Rhein-Sieg University of Applied Sciences)
Citation 29
Crypto-Cognitive Exploitation: Integrating Cognitive, Social, and Technological perspectives on cryptocurrency fraud
Perdana, Arif; Jhee Jiow, Hee (2024) Telematics and Informatics
Citation 30
Love scam in cyberspace
Thiel, C. (2020) Cyberkriminologie

Revision history

This history includes approved public synthesis versions. Drafts and unsuccessful generation attempts are not shown.

Version 71
Current public version Sep 6, 2026

Automated claim-level support repair round 1, correcting 4 passages from synthesis version 70.
Version 70
Sep 6, 2026

Automated evidence-grounded revision attempt 5. This revision preserves a set of protected, verbatim passages and their exact evidence links required by the audit. Other sections were revised to ensure every substantive claim is attached only to evidence records that directly support it; partially supported or inferential claims flagged by the audit were narrowed or reworded to match explicit evidence. The synthesis adds explicit paragraph-level evidence citations and removes or softened broader...
Version 69
Sep 6, 2026

Automated evidence-grounded revision attempt 4. Initial version.
- Publications: 30 (-1)
- Evidence statements: 93 (-2)
- Cited sources: 30 (-1)
Sources removed: Online-Dating Romance Scam in Malaysia: An Analysis of Online Conversations between Scammers and Victims.

View full revision history (71 versions)

Return to Research Insights