Cyberscams are a pervasive global issue with losses exceeding $1 trillion worldwide and resulting in significant psychosocial impacts, particularly shame. People with disabilities, such as acquired brain injury (ABI), may be additionally vulnerable due to cognitive impairments and social isolation. Increased scam vulnerability and risk factors for people with ABI have not been investigated. This study aimed to (a) determine whether people with ABI have greater risk of being scammed than people without ABI, and (b) explore demographic and psychosocial factors associated with cyberscam risk for people with and without ABI. Using a cross-sectional design, participants with (n = 149) and without (n = 153) ABI provided scam experience details and completed a validated measure of self-rated cybersafety and practical scam identification (The CyberAbility Scale) and measures of psychosocial risks of loneliness, impulsivity, mood, trust, and community integration. Correlation analyses showed that participants with ABI performed worse on a scam identification task than those without ABI. As expected, higher self-rated scam safety was associated with lower loneliness, impulsivity, and fewer mood symptoms, and higher trust and community integration. In multiple regression analyses, higher loneliness was most significantly associated with higher self-rated cyberscam risk, and older age and presence of ABI were associated with poorer scam identification. This study illustrates the multifaceted nature of cyberscam risk, involving distinct social and knowledge-based risks. Findings underscore the need for scam prevention and recovery initiatives targeting at-risk groups and considering the needs of people with ABI in staying safe online.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Global Anti-Scam Alliance. The Global State of Scams - 2023. 2024.
2.
GouldKR, CarminatiJ, PonsfordJL. “They just say how stupid I was for being conned”. Cyberscams and acquired brain injury: A qualitative exploration of the lived experience of survivors and close others. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 2023; 33(2):325–345; doi: 10.1080/09602011.2021.2016447
3.
WhittyMT, BuchananT. The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims - both financial and non-financial. Criminol Crim Justice, 2016; 16(2):176–194; doi: 10.1177/1748895815603773
4.
ButtonM, CrossC. Cyber Frauds, Scams and Their Victims. Taylor & Francis; 2017.
5.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability in Australia: Acquired Brain Injury. Bulletin. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare: Canberra; 2007.
6.
BrunnerM, HemsleyB, PalmerS, et al.Review of the literature on the use of social media by people with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Disabil Rehabil, 2015; 37(17):1511–1521; doi: 10.3109/09638288.2015.1045992
7.
BrunnerM, PalmerS, TogherL, et al.‘I kind of figured it out’: The views and experiences of people with traumatic brain injury (TBI) in using social media—self-determination for participation and inclusion online. Int J Lang Commun Disord, 2019; 54(2):221–233; doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12405
8.
KilovAM, TogherL, PowerE, et al.Can teenagers with traumatic brain injury use Internet chatrooms? A systematic review of the literature and the Internet. Brain Inj, 2010; 24(10):1135–1172; doi: 10.3109/02699052.2010.490511
9.
TsaousidesT, MatsuzawaY, LebowitzM. Familiarity and prevalence of Facebook use for social networking among individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj, 2011; 25(12):1155–1162; doi: 10.3109/02699052.2011.613086
10.
GouldKR, CarolanM, PonsfordJL. Do we need to know about cyberscams in neurorehabilitation? Brain Impair, 2023; 24(2):229–244; doi: 10.1017/BrImp.2022.13
11.
ChewK, PonsfordJL, GouldKR. I desperately need to know what to do”: A qualitative exploration of clinicians and service providers perspectives on addressing cyberscams and acquired brain injury (ABI). J Med Internet Res, 2024; 26:e51245; doi: 10.2196/51245
12.
Beaulieu-BonneauS, DuboisL, Lafond-DesmaraisS-J, et al.Use of smartphones and tablets after acquired brain injury to support cognition. Disabil Rehabil Assist Technol, 2024; 19(4):1473–1481; doi: 10.1080/17483107.2023.2199036
13.
DahlbergC, HawleyL, MoreyC, et al.Social communication skills in persons with post-acute traumatic brain injury: Three perspectives. Brain Inj, 2006; 20(4):425–435; doi: 10.1080/02699050600664574
14.
GodwinE, KreutzerJ, Arango-LasprillaJ, et al.Marriage after brain injury. J Head Trauma Rehabil, 2011; 26(1):43–55; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0b013e3182048f54
15.
PonsfordJL, DowningMG, OlverJ, et al.Longitudinal follow-up of patients with traumatic brain injury: Outcome at two, five, and ten years post-injury. J Neurotrauma, 2014; 31(1):64–77; doi: 10.1089/neu.2013.2997
16.
TogherL, Wiseman-HakesC, DouglasJ, et al.;INCOG Expert Panel. INCOG recommendations for management of cognition following traumatic brain injury, part IV: Cognitive communication. J Head Trauma Rehabil, 2014; 29(4):353–368; doi: 10.1097/HTR.0000000000000071
17.
DeLiemaM, LiY, MottolaG. Correlates of responding to and becoming victimized by fraud: Examining risk factors by scam type. Int J Consumer Studies, 2023; 47(3):1042–1059; doi: 10.1111/ijcs.12886
18.
CazanisA, CarminatiJ-YJ, ChewK, et al.A Qualitative Exploration of the Lived Experience of Cyberscam Survivors and Close Others [Manuscript in Preparation]. 2024.
19.
TitusRM, GloverAR. Personal fraud: The victims and the scams. In: Repeat Victimisation: Crime Prevention Studies. Criminal Justice Press; 2001; pp. 133–151; doi: 10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_128
20.
WhittyMT. The scammers persuasive techniques model: Development of a stage model to explain the online dating romance scam. Br J Criminol, 2013; 53(4):665–684; doi: 10.1093/bjc/azt009
21.
WhittyMT. Anatomy of the online dating romance scam. Secur J, 2015; 28(4):443–455; doi: 10.1057/sj.2012.57
22.
ModicD, LeaS. How neurotic are scam victims, really? The big five and internet scams. SSRN Journal, 2012; doi: 10.2139/ssrn.2448130
23.
WhittyMT. Do you love me? Psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw, 2018; 21(2):105–109; doi: 10.1089/cyber.2016.0729
24.
WhittyMT. Is there a scam for everyone? Psychologically profiling cyberscam victims. Eur J Crim Policy Res, 2020; 26(3):399–409; doi: 10.1007/s10610-020-09458-z
CarminatiJ-YJ, WileyJ, PonsfordJL, et al.Development and Validation of The CyberAbility Scale: A Screening Tool of Cyberscam Risk for People with and without Acquired Brain Injury [Manuscript in Preparation]. 2024.
27.
CallawayL, WinklerD, TippettA, et al.The Community Integration Questionnaire-Revised (CIQ-R). Summer Foundation Ltd: Melbourne, Australia; 2014.
28.
LeeJ, CagleJG. Validating the 11-Item revised university of California Los Angeles scale to assess loneliness among older adults: An evaluation of factor structure and other measurement properties. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry, 2017; 25(11):1173–1183; doi: 10.1016/j.jagp.2017.06.004
29.
GoldbergLR, JohnsonJA, EberHW, et al.The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. J Res Personal, 2006; 40(1):84–96; doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2005.08.007
30.
CydersMA, LittlefieldAK, CoffeyS, et al.Examination of a short English version of the UPPS-P Impulsive Behavior Scale. Addict Behav, 2014; 39(9):1372–1376; doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2014.02.013
31.
ZigmondAS, SnaithRP. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand, 1983; 67(6):361–370; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x
32.
HarrisPA, TaylorR, ThielkeR, et al.Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform, 2009; 42(2):377–381; doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
33.
CarmichaelJ, SpitzG, GouldK R, et al.Bifactor analysis of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in individuals with traumatic brain injury. Scientific Reports, 2023; 13(1).
34.
HarrisPA, TaylorR, MinorBL, et al.;REDCap Consortium. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software platform partners. J Biomed Inform, 2019; 95:103208; doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208
35.
R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. 2021.
36.
BottariC, GosselinN, GuillemetteM, et al.Independence in managing one’s finances after traumatic brain injury. Brain Inj, 2011; 25(13–14):1306–1317; doi: 10.3109/02699052.2011.624570
37.
MathiasJL, WheatonP. Changes in attention and information-processing speed following severe traumatic brain injury: A meta-analytic review. Neuropsychology, 2007; 21(2):212–223; doi: 10.1037/0894-4105.21.2.212
38.
VakilE. The effect of moderate to severe Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) on different aspects of memory: A selective review. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 2005; 27(8):977–1021; doi: 10.1080/13803390490919245
39.
VakilE, GreensteinY, WeissI, et al.The effects of moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury on episodic memory: A meta-analysis. Neuropsychol Rev, 2019; 29(3):270–287; doi: 10.1007/s11065-019-09413-8
40.
JehkonenM, LaihosaloM, KettunenJ. Anosognosia after stroke: Assessment, occurrence, subtypes and impact on functional outcome reviewed. Acta Neurol Scand, 2006; 114(5):293–306; doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0404.2006.00723.x
41.
PrigatanoGP. Anosognosia after traumatic brain injury. In: The Study of Anosognosia. Oxford University Press: New York; 2010; pp. 229–254.
42.
CohenLE, FelsonM. Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. Am Sociol Rev, 1979; 44(4):588; doi: 10.2307/2094589
43.
RossS, SmithRG. Risk factors for advance fee fraud victimisation. Trends Issues Crime Crim Justice Electron Resour, 2011(420):1–6; doi: 10.3316/agispt.20114328
44.
DikmenSS, MachamerJE, PowellJM, et al.Outcome 3 to 5 years after moderate to severe traumatic brain injury1. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2003; 84(10):1449–1457; doi: 10.1016/S0003-9993(03)00287-9
45.
FraserR, MachamerJ, TemkinN, et al.Return to work in traumatic brain injury (TBI): A perspective on capacity for job complexity. J Vocat Rehabil, 2006; 25(3):141–148.
46.
ProctorCJ, BestLA. Social and psychological influences on satisfaction with life after brain injury. Disabil Health J, 2019; 12(3):387–393; doi: 10.1016/j.dhjo.2019.01.001
47.
SalasCE, Rojas-LíbanoD, CastroO, et al.Social isolation after acquired brain injury: Exploring the relationship between network size, functional support, loneliness and mental health. Neuropsychol Rehabil, 2022; 32(9):2294–2318; doi: 10.1080/09602011.2021.1939062
48.
JamesBD, BoylePA, BennettDA. Correlates of susceptibility to scams in older adults without dementia. J Elder Abuse Negl, 2014; 26(2):107–122; doi: 10.1080/08946566.2013.821809
49.
ShaoJ, ZhangQ, RenY, et al.Why are older adults victims of fraud? Current knowledge and prospects regarding older adults’ vulnerability to fraud. J Elder Abuse Negl, 2019; 31(3):225–243; doi: 10.1080/08946566.2019.1625842
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
