Patterns of online repeat victimisation and implications for crime prevention

Abstract

This paper explores the characteristics of repeat victimisation (RV) in relation to fraud and computer misuse (F&CM) crimes recorded in Wales, United Kingdom (UK). The wider study included mixed-methods analysis of a sample of cases (n = 10,001) reported by individuals in Wales, over a period of two years (ending in September 2016). In this paper, key results from the quantitative part of this study concerning RV are presented. This paper contributes to an empirically grounded understanding RV with respect to F&CM and its insights are of direct relevance to theoretical understandings of victimisation and the formulation of interventions within the 'Protect' strand of policing in the UK. It suggests that older age is associated with RV for these crime types, that a repeat report is likely to be of the same general type as the crime which preceded it and that interventions to protect individuals from being re-victimised are best targeted within two weeks to one month of the first report. The paper also highlights the extent to which RV analysis is constrained by the rules which shape crime recording and identifies avenues for improvement of data collection and further research. Furthermore, it suggests the need to develop a framework of F&CM vulnerability which goes beyond risk of re-victimisation and better accounts for and enables a response to victims' wider support needs.

Repeat Clicking: A Lack of Awareness is Not the Problem

“…At least two studies have found a tendency for a small number of cybercrime victims to be repeat victims, accounting for a disproportionate number of victimization. One study which analyzed data produced by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), based on the Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW), found that repeat cybercrime victims accounted for approximately twice the number of reported cybercrimes than one-time victims (Correia, 2020). Another study found that 45% of cyber-fraud victims were repeat victims (Whitty, 2019).…”

“…Theories focusing on the influence of culture on phishing susceptibility, account for the broader influence that sociological factors can have on attitudes and behavior (Butavicius et al, 2016;Posey & Canham, 2018); however, because repeat clicking behavior appears to only afflict a small portion of user populations, it seems unlikely that this behavior is being driven by cultural influences. Theories focusing on individual differences have examined the influence of individual level factors on phishing susceptibility such as personality traits, expertise, and other individual differences (Halevi et al, 2015;Lawson et al, 2017;Pattinson et al, 2012;Sackett & Walmsley, 2014;Sudzina & Pavlicek, 2017, 2020Uebelacker & Quiel, 2014;Welk et al, 2015;Zhao & Smillie, 2015). Repeat clicking behavior will most likely involve an explanation drawing from an interaction between individual traits and social influence techniques, or situational factors, or a combination of the three of these factors, and thus hybrid theories (Harrison et al, 2016;Uebelacker & Quiel, 2014;Williams et al, 2017) are the most promising potential explanation of factors driving the repeat clicking phenomenon.…”

“…With the objective of gaining insight into the causes of repeat clicking behavior, this study recruited volunteers selected from the study described in (Canham et al, 2021) to participate in interview sessions with researchers. Because there is currently very little understanding for the causal factors relating to repeated victimization in cybercrime victims (Correia, 2020), the current study was exploratory in nature and thus relied heavily on qualitative data collection.…”

Making the most of cybercrime and fraud crime report data: a case study of UK Action Fraud

“…Additionally, researchers have leveraged AF data, to better understand reported trends, as well as their implications for policy and practice [ 2 , 7 – 10 ]. In particular, this data has an enormous potential for researchers as it provides granular detail on each report and, as the author’s previous work demonstrates, allows for the analysis of small geographies and repeat victimisation [ 8 , 11 ]. However, before conclusions are drawn on substantive matters, it is key to develop a thorough understanding of how data sources were collected, evaluate their quality in relation to wider research aims and prepare them for statistical analysis.…”