The present research suggests that the psychological reasons for
responding to scams involve a mixture of cognitive and motivational
processes. Whilst different kinds of scam do exploit different
vulnerabilities to some extent, there are similarities between scams in
their content and the use of persuasive techniques. The greatest and
most consistent emphasis was on:
• appeals to trust and authority: people tend to obey authorities so
scammers use, and victims fall for, cues that make the offer look like
a legitimate one being made by a reliable official institution or
established reputable business;
• visceral triggers: scams exploit basic human desires and needs – such
as greed, fear, avoidance of physical pain, or the desire to be liked –
in order to provoke intuitive reactions and reduce the motivation of
people to process the content of the scam message deeply. For
example, scammers use triggers that make potential victims focus on
the huge prizes or benefits on offer.
There are also a number of other error-inducing processes that emerged,
including:
• Scarcity cues. Scams are often personalised to create the impression
that the offer is unique to the recipient. They also emphasise the
urgency of a response to reduce the potential victim's motivation to
process the scam content objectively;
• Induction of behavioural commitment. Scammers ask their potential
victims to make small steps of compliance to draw them in, and
thereby cause victims to feel committed to continue sending money;
• The disproportionate relation between the size of the alleged reward
and the cost of trying to obtain it. Scam victims are led to focus on
the alleged big prize or reward in comparison to the relatively smallamount of money they have to send in order to obtain their windfall;
a phenomenon called 'phantom fixation'. The high value reward
(often life-changing, medically, financially, emotionally or physically)
that scam victims thought they could get by responding, makes the
money to be paid look rather small by comparison;
• Lack of emotional control. Compared to non-victims, scam victims
report being less able to regulate and resist emotions associated with
scam offers. They seem to be unduly open to persuasion, or perhaps
unduly undiscriminating about who they allow to persuade them.
This creates an extra vulnerability in those who are socially isolated,
because social networks often induce us to regulate our emotions
when we otherwise might not.
Other key findings
Some of the psychological processes we identified as contributing to
falling for a scam were to be expected, on the basis either of previous
research literature, or common sense. Some others were less
predictable.
For example, it was striking how some scam victims kept their decision
to respond private and avoided speaking about it with family members
or friends. It was almost as if with some part of their minds, they knew
that what they were doing was unwise, and they feared the
confirmation of that that another person would have offered. Indeed to
some extent they hide their response to the scam from their more
rational selves.
Another counter-intuitive finding is that scam victims often have better
than average background knowledge in the area of the scam content.
For example, it seems that people with experience of playing legitimate
prize draws and lotteries are more likely to fall for a scam in this area
than people with less knowledge and experience in this field. This also
applies to those with some knowledge of investments. Such knowledge
can increase rather than decrease the risk of becoming a victim.
amount of money they have to send in order to obtain their windfall;
a phenomenon called 'phantom fixation'. The high value reward
(often life-changing, medically, financially, emotionally or physically)
that scam victims thought they could get by responding, makes the
money to be paid look rather small by comparison;
• Lack of emotional control. Compared to non-victims, scam victims
report being less able to regulate and resist emotions associated with
scam offers. They seem to be unduly open to persuasion, or perhaps
unduly undiscriminating about who they allow to persuade them.
This creates an extra vulnerability in those who are socially isolated,
because social networks often induce us to regulate our emotions
when we otherwise might not.
Other key findings
Some of the psychological processes we identified as contributing to
falling for a scam were to be expected, on the basis either of previous
research literature, or common sense. Some others were less
predictable.
For example, it was striking how some scam victims kept their decision
to respond private and avoided speaking about it with family members
or friends. It was almost as if with some part of their minds, they knew
that what they were doing was unwise, and they feared the
confirmation of that that another person would have offered. Indeed to
some extent they hide their response to the scam from their more
rational selves.
Another counter-intuitive finding is that scam victims often have better
than average background knowledge in the area of the scam content.
For example, it seems that people with experience of playing legitimate
prize draws and lotteries are more likely to fall for a scam in this area
than people with less knowledge and experience in this field. This also
applies to those with some knowledge of investments. Such knowledge
can increase rather than decrease the risk of becoming a victim.
This is some how good reading and I hope it will help a few people not to be scammed
responding to scams involve a mixture of cognitive and motivational
processes. Whilst different kinds of scam do exploit different
vulnerabilities to some extent, there are similarities between scams in
their content and the use of persuasive techniques. The greatest and
most consistent emphasis was on:
• appeals to trust and authority: people tend to obey authorities so
scammers use, and victims fall for, cues that make the offer look like
a legitimate one being made by a reliable official institution or
established reputable business;
• visceral triggers: scams exploit basic human desires and needs – such
as greed, fear, avoidance of physical pain, or the desire to be liked –
in order to provoke intuitive reactions and reduce the motivation of
people to process the content of the scam message deeply. For
example, scammers use triggers that make potential victims focus on
the huge prizes or benefits on offer.
There are also a number of other error-inducing processes that emerged,
including:
• Scarcity cues. Scams are often personalised to create the impression
that the offer is unique to the recipient. They also emphasise the
urgency of a response to reduce the potential victim's motivation to
process the scam content objectively;
• Induction of behavioural commitment. Scammers ask their potential
victims to make small steps of compliance to draw them in, and
thereby cause victims to feel committed to continue sending money;
• The disproportionate relation between the size of the alleged reward
and the cost of trying to obtain it. Scam victims are led to focus on
the alleged big prize or reward in comparison to the relatively smallamount of money they have to send in order to obtain their windfall;
a phenomenon called 'phantom fixation'. The high value reward
(often life-changing, medically, financially, emotionally or physically)
that scam victims thought they could get by responding, makes the
money to be paid look rather small by comparison;
• Lack of emotional control. Compared to non-victims, scam victims
report being less able to regulate and resist emotions associated with
scam offers. They seem to be unduly open to persuasion, or perhaps
unduly undiscriminating about who they allow to persuade them.
This creates an extra vulnerability in those who are socially isolated,
because social networks often induce us to regulate our emotions
when we otherwise might not.
Other key findings
Some of the psychological processes we identified as contributing to
falling for a scam were to be expected, on the basis either of previous
research literature, or common sense. Some others were less
predictable.
For example, it was striking how some scam victims kept their decision
to respond private and avoided speaking about it with family members
or friends. It was almost as if with some part of their minds, they knew
that what they were doing was unwise, and they feared the
confirmation of that that another person would have offered. Indeed to
some extent they hide their response to the scam from their more
rational selves.
Another counter-intuitive finding is that scam victims often have better
than average background knowledge in the area of the scam content.
For example, it seems that people with experience of playing legitimate
prize draws and lotteries are more likely to fall for a scam in this area
than people with less knowledge and experience in this field. This also
applies to those with some knowledge of investments. Such knowledge
can increase rather than decrease the risk of becoming a victim.
amount of money they have to send in order to obtain their windfall;
a phenomenon called 'phantom fixation'. The high value reward
(often life-changing, medically, financially, emotionally or physically)
that scam victims thought they could get by responding, makes the
money to be paid look rather small by comparison;
• Lack of emotional control. Compared to non-victims, scam victims
report being less able to regulate and resist emotions associated with
scam offers. They seem to be unduly open to persuasion, or perhaps
unduly undiscriminating about who they allow to persuade them.
This creates an extra vulnerability in those who are socially isolated,
because social networks often induce us to regulate our emotions
when we otherwise might not.
Other key findings
Some of the psychological processes we identified as contributing to
falling for a scam were to be expected, on the basis either of previous
research literature, or common sense. Some others were less
predictable.
For example, it was striking how some scam victims kept their decision
to respond private and avoided speaking about it with family members
or friends. It was almost as if with some part of their minds, they knew
that what they were doing was unwise, and they feared the
confirmation of that that another person would have offered. Indeed to
some extent they hide their response to the scam from their more
rational selves.
Another counter-intuitive finding is that scam victims often have better
than average background knowledge in the area of the scam content.
For example, it seems that people with experience of playing legitimate
prize draws and lotteries are more likely to fall for a scam in this area
than people with less knowledge and experience in this field. This also
applies to those with some knowledge of investments. Such knowledge
can increase rather than decrease the risk of becoming a victim.
This is some how good reading and I hope it will help a few people not to be scammed
