Low Self‐control, Routine Activities, and Fraud Victimization*

Abstract

Recent research has used both routine activity/lifestyle frameworks and self‐control theory to explain victimization. Thus far, combined tests of these theories have focused on offending populations and street crime victimization. Whether these frameworks also explain exposure to and likelihood of nonviolent victimization (e.g., fraud) in general‐population samples remains an open empirical question. Building on prior work, we assess the independent effects of routine consumer activities (i.e., remote purchasing) and low self‐control on the likelihood of fraud targeting and victimization. Using a representative sample of 922 adults from a statewide survey in Florida, the results confirm our expectation that remote‐purchasing activities increase consumers' risk of being targeted for fraud. Low self‐control has no effect on whether consumers are targeted, but it does significantly increase the likelihood of fraud victimization.

Offending and Victimization in the Digital Age: Comparing Correlates of Cybercrime and Traditional Offending-Only, Victimization-Only and the Victimization-Offending Overlap

“…Van Wilsem (2013) found that low self-control was positively related to hacking victimization, while Bossler and Holt (2010) found that low self-control was neither related to hacking nor to malware victimization. However, Holtfreter, Reisig, and Pratt (2008) found that although targeting is random, the personal characteristics and behavior of the victim influenced who responded to a scam. As a result, low self-control may play a role in the risk of victimization regardless of the targeted nature of victimization.…”

“…The absence of measures may lead to model misspecification as online activity could increase the risk of offline crimes like fraud (Holtfreter, Reisig, and Pratt 2008). At the same time, traditional crimes might decrease because individuals spend more time online (Tcherni et al 2016).…”

Mass-Marketing Fraud: A Growing Concern

“…12 Kristy Holtfreter and her colleagues looked broadly at consumer fraud victimization and found that victims were more likely to have low self-control. 14 In contrast, it's been found that those who are considered sensation seekers aren't more likely to be scammed by the online dating romance scam; rather, for those who score high on the Romantic Belief Scale, idealization is more associated with the likelihood of being a victim. 7,11 In explaining the success of mass-marketing fraud, scholars mostly draw from social psychological theories and apply them to these scams.…”

You’ve got mail! Explaining individual differences in becoming a phishing target

“…Studies on fraud victimization in the past have also tried to gain more insight in the sociodemographic characteristics of victims (Holtfreter et al, 2008;Sheng et al, 2010;Titus et al, 1995). It soon became clear however, that creating demographic profiles for fraud victims is a complex undertaking (Holtfreter et al, 2008).…”