Psychological and functional vulnerability predicts fraud cases in older adults: Results of a longitudinal study
Open accessAbstract
Using cross sectional data Psychological vulnerability was identified as a correlate of older adult's being defrauded. We extend that research by examining fraud prevalence using longitudinal data from the Health and Retirement Study, and to identify the best predictors of fraud longitudinally across a 4-year time frame. Whereas reported fraud prevalence was 5.0% in a 5-year look-back period in 2008, it increased to 6.1% in 2012. The rate of new-incident fraud across only a 4-year look-back was 4.3%. Being younger-old, having a higher level of education, and having more depression significantly predicted the new cases of fraud reported in 2012. Psychological vulnerability was a potent longitudinal predictor of fraud, with the most vulnerable individuals being more than twice as likely to be defrauded. Results indicate that fraud victimization among older adults is rising, and that vulnerability variables, along with some demographic variables, predict new cases of 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.
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 127
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Stanford Center on Longevity, & Financial Fraud Research Center Conference proceedings: The True Impact of Fraud—A Roundtable of Experts 2014 FINRA Investor Education Foundation Washington, D.C
- Authors
- Lichtenberg, P. A., Sugarman, M. A., Paulson, D., Ficker, L. J., & Rahman-Filipiak, A.
- Affiliations
- Wayne State University (US)
- University of Central Florida (US)
- Corresponding author
- Lichtenberg, Peter Alexander
- Venue
- Clinical Gerontologist
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-10-09
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 48-63
- ISSN
- 0731-7115 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2301
- PMC
- PMC4824611
- OpenAlex
- W2228130119
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 10.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Clinical Gerontologist (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Journal of International Crisis and Risk Communication Research (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Justice (MU-CX-0001)
- National Institutes of Health (P30 AG015281)
- Robert and Martha Sachs
- Michigan Center for Urban African American Aging Research
- American House Foundation
- Retirement Research Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
- Keywords
- fraud victimization, older adults, psychological vulnerability, functional vulnerability, depression, age
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
