This research paper documents the typical background and motivations of victims affected by online dating romance site frauds, the introduction gives a basic background on the subject at hand and is effectively the thesis to this entire paper. The next segments, known as Typology of Victims and Romance Scam Typology. Detail both the general characteristics and motives of standard scam victims and it’s Romance Scam counterpart, with a few common factors such as gullibility and lower impulses control. Then, using data retrieved from a survey sent out to members of an online dating forum. Datasets were made that showed the characteristics of that forums users and whether or not they were scammed and if they were at risk of it.

To begin this analysis, Lets go over some social science principles and ideas that are present in this document. To start, I think that the idea of Parsimony in this study is evident during the Typology sections. As each factor that may determine a victim is broken down into their own sections, with explanations to boot to help those reading stay on track. The next concept that can be seen in this document is the foundation of most research, that being Objectivity. The document keeps a neutral and outsider tone throughout, only showing the statistics and insights as they are with little to no window-dressing. The last social science principle seen in this document is Ethical Neutrality, as this is a sensitive subject with many affected. Any to all research, interviews, and polls conducted had only surface information with no actual names or specific locations detailed. Protecting the privacy of those who were surveyed.

The primary question asked was what were the factors that cause people to get scammed in the worlds of online dating. The theories posited involve the desire for a meaningful relationship, the want for financial gain, and more often than not poor impulse control leading to the victim getting into a situation where they are emotionally and financially compromised to the scammer.

The primary source of much of the information seen in this document comes from the usage of cybersecurity surveys, wherein data is collected by asking would be participants information pertaining to the research and seeing what they fill out or say. In this case, much of the material found was thanks to a survey conducted on a forum named Qualtrics. In which over 12,060 participants from the United Kingdom were selected for the experiment. Resulting in a larger sample size for the experiment.

In the case of this document, its data and subsequent analysis fall under the natural experiment umbrella. As although the survey itself was controlled, the sources of data that were used were entirely out of the hands of the researchers, in this case the users of a web forum with experiences not controlled by the researchers were asked to input their data from their time on the forum into the questionnaire. After that, the data was sectioned based off several factors. Including age, financial status, and motives.

There are several concepts and ideas from Cybersecurity that are seen in this document. The first of which is the Social Sciences, an example of which is Parsimony, the idea of social factors influencing people to perform certain acts online. The second concept is Social Science Research, in particular. The heavy usage of surveys to collect much of the data seen in the document. The final example is Cyber victimization. Which details how certain personality traits can lend the victims towards getting scammed.

In the document, great concern is held toward several groups which were disproportionally affected by these sorts of scams, that being middle to older age users and especially women. The first group has far more research done on it than the latter, as there are a myriad of proper explanations as to why this age group especially are vulnerable from this type of scam. For the latter however, there is little data as to why women are more vulnerable than men from these types of scams, although a proper education shows itself as a protective factor against scams.

I believe that the main takeaway from this document are the dangers of putting too much faith and trust to someone that you effectively know little of. To elaborate, I think this document can be used to show the possible hooks these scammers could use to bait you into giving them your money. Additionally, I think that those who fall under the criteria at risk of getting scammed can be informed before they fall into the trap themselves.