Cited by 8Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentSexual Assault and Victimization Studies

Dating Applications: A Honeypot for Sextortion Victims

Open access
Tavakoli, Harmony, Tzani, Calli, Ioannou, Maria, Williams, Thomas James Vaughan, Drouin, Michelle, Fletcher, Rachel·2024·Deviant Behavior

Abstract

Perpetrators often have easy access to victims via widely used social media networks, such as Snapchat, Instagram, and Facebook. Nowadays, dating applications have provided one more platform where sextortionists identify potential victims and lure them into extortion and victimization. Limited research and media coverage has revealed that sextortion can cause significant harm, with victims reporting negative psychological consequences, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Many empirical findings arise from explorations of webcam sextortion, with limited literature examining sextortion in social media platforms, and particularly online dating sites. In the current, exploratory study, we examine these modern trends directly via an online survey of 102 participants. Overall, 62.7% had been sextorted by another dating application user, and 25.5% experienced failed attempts of sextortion by another dating application user. Results uniquely showed that Tinder, as well as Snapchat, are often used as fishing platforms for identifying sextortion victims. Furthermore, sextortion could be successfully predicted if individuals perceived that the perpetrator “seemed genuinely interested,” demonstrating how online dating platforms which specifically target those seeking romantic connections provide an ideal mechanism for perpetrators to fish for victims.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/01639625.2024.2317904

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • More recent research not included in the review suggests that women who use video chatting services, messaging applications, and social media platforms are more likely to be victimized by sextortion compared to men.

    “For instance, more recent research (not included in this review) suggests that women who use video chatting services, messaging applications, and social media platforms are more likely to be victimized by sextortion compared to men (Tavakoli et al., 2024).”

    From Sextortion: A Scoping Review (2025) · cites this paper as Tavakoli et al., 2024

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tavakoli, H., Tzani, C., Ioannou, M., Williams, T. J. V., Drouin, M., & Fletcher, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Huddersfield (GB)
  • University of Huddersfield, Queensgate, UK
  • Purdue University Fort Wayne (US)
Corresponding author
Tzani, Calli
Venue
Deviant Behavior
Published
2024-02-14
Volume
45
Issue
12
Pages
1655-1666
ISSN
  • 0163-9625 (ISSN-L)
  • 1521-0456
OpenAlex
W4391810203
Cited by
7
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4
FWCI
2.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Deviant Behavior (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Huddersfield Research Portal (University of Huddersfield) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
conducting this study
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Stalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Sexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Keywords
sextortion, dating apps, victimization, Tinder, Snapchat, social media, cyber victimization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review