Spot the Scam: Identifying Email Scams and Scam Susceptibility in Younger and Older Adults
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Young and older adults are often victimized by various forms of scams and fraud. However, little research has been conducted on how a scam prevention intervention may impact young and older adults' accuracy and confidence in determining the legitimacy of emails. The present study investigated young and older adults' accuracy and confidence, as well as potential contributing factors to scam susceptibility, before and after engaging with one of three intervention activities: control (no intervention), read-only (read common scam qualities), or interactive (interactively learned scam qualities in emails). METHOD: Young and older adult participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Before and after the intervention, participants evaluated a series of legitimate and scam emails, indicating whether each email was legitimate or a scam. Participants also rated their confidence in their accuracy, the personal relevance of each email, and their curiosity about engaging further with the email. RESULTS: Both age groups showed no difference in sensitivity when determining the legitimacy of the emails before and after the interventions. Importantly, both age groups in the read-only and interactive conditions showed a bias toward labeling emails as scams, indicating a generally cautious approach. CONCLUSIONS: Although the interventions did not improve detection sensitivity, participants were more cautious when evaluating emails. This tendency may help reduce vulnerability to scams and fraud and suggests that interventions can encourage greater caution when evaluating suspicious emails across age groups.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/bf03193146 · Cited by 65,971 · see citing works
The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.7455683 · Cited by 17,604 · cited 1× · see citing works
“In addition, framing effects, or how information is presented, can also impact people’s perceptions of the information they are viewing (Ebner et al., 2023; Kim, 2014; Tversky & Kahneman, 1981).”
Alba, J. W., & Hasher, L. (1983) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.93.2.203 · Cited by 1,169 · see citing works
Generativity among young, midlife, and older adults
McAdams, D. P., de St. Aubin, E., & Logan, R. L. (1993) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.8.2.221 · Cited by 614 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Older adults generally express more generativity or have more concern for the next generation than young adults (McAdams et al., 1993).”
How warnings about false claims become recommendations
Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D. C., & Schwarz, N. (2005) · Journal of Consumer Research · doi:10.1086/426605 · Cited by 446 · see citing works
Correlates of susceptibility to scams in older adults without dementia
James, B. D., Boyle, P. A., & Bennett, D. A. (2014) · Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1080/08946566.2013.821809 · Cited by 280 · see citing works
False memories with age: neural and cognitive underpinnings
Devitt, A. L., & Schacter, D. L. (2016) · Neuropsychologia · doi:10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2016.08.030 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Shao, J., Zhang, Q., Ren, Y., Li, X., & Lin, T. (2019) · Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect · doi:10.1080/08946566.2019.1625842 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
Swan, G. E., & Carmelli, D. (1996) · Psychology and Aging · doi:10.1037/0882-7974.11.3.449 · Cited by 100 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Alberts, K. O., Espiritu, I. J., & Castel, A. D.
- Affiliations
- University of California System (US)
- Corresponding author
- Alberts, Kylie O.
- Venue
- Experimental Aging Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2026-03-02
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 483-516
- ISSN
- 0361-073X (ISSN-L)
- 1096-4657
- OpenAlex
- W7133349582
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2
- FWCI
- 9.09
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Experimental Aging Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Aging (R01 AG044335)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
- Keywords
- email fraud, older adults, young adults, detection accuracy, confidence in judgments, age differences
- MeSH terms
- Cyberbullying, Adult, Aged, Aging, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Electronic Mail, Young Adult
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