Cited by 146Elder Abuse and NeglectCybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesAging, Elder Care, and Social Issues

Is psychological vulnerability related to the experience of fraud in older adults?

Open access
Lichtenberg, Peter A., Stickney, Laurie, Paulson, Daniel·2013·Clinical Gerontologist

Abstract

Financial exploitation, and particularly thefts and scams, are increasing at an alarming rate. In this study we (a) determined the national prevalence of older adults who report having been a victim of fraud, (b) created a population-based model for the prediction of fraud, and (c) examined how fraud is experienced by the most psychologically vulnerable older adults. The older adults studied were 4,400 participants in a Health and Retirement Study substudy, the 2008 Leave Behind Questionnaire. The prevalence of fraud across the previous 5 years was 4.5%. Among measures collected in 2002, age, education, and depression were significant predictors of fraud. Financial satisfaction and social-needs fulfillment were measured in 2008 and were significantly related to fraud above and beyond the 2002 predictors. Using depression and social-needs fulfillment to determine the most psychologically vulnerable older adults, we found that fraud prevalence was three times higher (14%) among those with the highest depression and the lowest social-needs fulfillment than among the rest of the sample (4.1%; χ2 = 20.49; p < .001). Clinical gerontologists and other professionals in the field need to be aware of their psychologically vulnerable clients' heightened exposure to financial fraud.

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 · 10.1080/07317115.2012.749323

Cites

18 of 18 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

4 of the 22 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lichtenberg, P. A., Stickney, L., & Paulson, D.
Affiliations
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Illinois Institute of Technology (US)
Corresponding author
Lichtenberg, Peter A.
Venue
Clinical Gerontologist
Published
2013-02-28
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
132-146
ISSN
  • 0731-7115 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2301
OpenAlex
W2061349246
Cited by
146
References
22
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 3
FWCI
11.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Clinical Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (T32AG000275)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Aging, Elder Care, and Social Issues
Keywords
fraud victimization, older adults, economic violence, psychological vulnerability, depression, financial satisfaction, fraud risk prediction, scams

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