Cited by 86Cybercrime and Law Enforcement StudiesTechnology Use by Older AdultsElder Abuse and Neglect

The psychology of the internet fraud victimization of older adults: A systematic review

Open access
Shang, Yuxi, Wu, Zhongxian, Du, Xiaoyu, Jiang, Yanbin, Ma, Beibei, Chi, Meihong·2022·Frontiers in Psychology

Abstract

Criminals targeting and exploiting older adults in online environments are of great concern. This study systematically retrieved and analyzed articles on the psychological characteristics of older adult victims of online fraud. First, we found that there was no evidence that older adults were more prevalent than other individuals of other ages among online fraud victims, and current researchers have focused more on why older adults are easy targets for fraud (susceptibility to being cheated). Second, research on psychological factors of older adults' susceptibility to online fraud has mainly focused on cognitive function, trust traits, and other personality traits, such as social loneliness, the Big Five personality traits, and self-control. Among them, most researchers claim that the cyber-cheating of older adults may be due to a decline in their cognitive function. However, there has not been a consensus on how cognitive function and physical and mental conditions affect older people who are cheated. Third, techniques (i.e., methods and techniques used by fraudsters) and experience (i.e., familiarity with internet technology or fraud) may be related to the susceptibility of older adults to fraud, and these studies have also not yet generated a consensus supported by reliable data. Based on the above research uncertainties, we propose that fraud prevention and control strategies for older adults should be applied with caution.

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 · 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.912242

Cites

90 of 90 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

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?

  • Existing reviews highlight that empirical evidence of post-victimization mental health and psychosocial sequelae is fragmented across disciplines and heterogeneous in study design, populations, and outcome measures.

    “Existing reviews highlight that, although psychological harm is frequently acknowledged, empirical evidence of post-victimization mental health and psychosocial sequelae is fragmented across disciplines and heterogeneous in study design, populations, and outcome measures”

    From Mental health and psychosocial sequelae of fraud victimization: a systematic review (2026) · cites this paper as Shang et al., 2022

    The Implications section (page unavailable) acknowledges that older fraud victims may experience negative emotions and mental disorders, including depression. The Methods and Results sections describe varied psychological factors, methods, and samples, but they do not establish that evidence on post-victimization sequelae is fragmented across disciplines or heterogeneous in its outcome measures; the review chiefly examines factors affecting susceptibility to fraud. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 12

  1. Alseadoon I. Chan T. Foo E. Gonzalez Nieto J. M. (2012). “Who is more susceptible to phishing emails a Saudi Arabian study,” in 23rd Australasian Conference on Information Systems (Melbourne, VIC: Deakin University).
  2. Chen S. Chaiken S. (1999). The Heuristic-Systematic Model in its Broader Context. Washington, DC: The Guilford Press.
  3. Deng C. P. (2021). Investigation on fraud of health care products for the elderly based on big data. J. Hubei Police Coll. 76–83. 10.19828/j.issn1673-2391.2021.01.007 · DOI
  4. Diao C. T. Zeng M. N. (2020). The relationship between elderly's online self-efficacy and online fraud response. J. Chinese Gerontol. 2204–2206. 10.3969/j.issn.1005-9202.2020.10.054 · DOI
  5. Gao. (2021). Influencing factors of College Students' susceptibility to online fraud (Master's thesis, Zhejiang University). Available online at: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD202102andfilename=1021610212.nh
  6. Kirchheimer S. (2011). Scams trap older adults. AARP Bulletin 1.
  7. Li Y. (2020). Study on the Intervention Path of case Work of the elderly to Prevent Telecom and Internet Fraud (Master's Thesis, Southwest University). Available online at: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD202101andfilename=1020327711.nh
  8. Modic D. (2012). Willing to be Scammed: How Self-Control Impacts Internet Scam Compliance (Unpublished Thesis). Exeter, UK: University of Exeter.
  9. Pan Y. (2016). Case work intervention of spiritual consolation for elderly empty-nesters in community (Master's Thesis, Changchun University of Technology). Available online at: https://kns.cnki.net/KCMS/detail/detail.aspx?dbname=CMFD201602andfilename=1016759194.nh
  10. Yang H. Shao J. J. Li J. M. Zhang G. H. (2019a). “Aging fear and deception susceptibility in the elderly: the role of uncertainty tolerance and self-control,” in Proceedings of the twenty-second National Psychological Conference, China. p. 728.
  11. Yang H. Shao J. J. Zhang G. H. Jiang Y. Li J. M. Bai X. J. (2019b). Aging fear and deception susceptibility in older adults: the Mediating role of sense of security and control. Chin. J. Endem. 1036–1040. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2019.05.037 · DOI
  12. Zhang M. K. (2016). Criminal Law. Beijing: Law Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shang, Y., Wu, Z., Du, X., Jiang, Y., Ma, B., & Chi, M.
Affiliations
  • Shandong Normal University (CN)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • Guangxi Science & Technology Normal University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Jiang, Yanbin
  • Ma, Beibei
  • Chi, Meihong
Venue
Frontiers in Psychology
Published
2022-09-05
Volume
13
Pages
912242-912242
ISSN
1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4294637166
Cited by
86
References
90
Citations by year
2026: 29 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 10
FWCI
1.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Technology Use by Older Adults
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Elder Abuse and Neglect
Keywords
online fraud, older adults, fraud susceptibility, cognitive function, trust, loneliness, Big Five personality traits, self-control, fraud prevention, cybercrime

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