Cited by 2Spam and Phishing DetectionCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesElder Abuse and Neglect

Spot the Scam: Identifying Email Scams and Scam Susceptibility in Younger and Older Adults

Alberts, Kylie O., Espiritu, Isiah J., Castel, Alan D.·2026·Experimental Aging Research

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/0361073x.2026.2635903

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
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