This study investigates the risk of being a target of an attempt at fraud through email by assessing the role of low self-control, online activities, and the disclosure of personal information. A secondary analysis of the 2014 U.S. “Caught in the Scammers’ Net”, a national survey of online victimization (N = 1,539), indicates that those with low self-control and individuals who engage in online activities are more likely to disclose personal information online. The risk of being targeted with a fraudulent offer is also associated with low self-control and online routine activities. Responding to a fraudulent offer is associated with disclosing personal information online and low self-control. Taken together, our empirical evidence strengthens the central role of low self-control theory.
ChoiK. (2008). Computer crime victimization and integrated theory: An empirical assessment. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 2, 308-333.
3.
ClarkeR. V. (2004). Technology, criminology and crime science. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 10, 55-63.
4.
CrossC. (2012). The Donald Mackay Churchill Fellowship to study methods of preventing and supporting victims on online fraud. Retrieved from https://eprints.qut.edu.au/54647/
5.
CrossC.SmithR. G.RichardsK. (2014). Challenges of responding to online fraud. Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology.
6.
DonnerC. M.MarcumC. D.JenningsW. G.HigginsG. E.BanfieldJ. (2014). Low social control and cybercrime: Exploring the utility of the general theory of crime beyond digital piracy. Computers in Human Behavior, 34, 165-172.
GottfredsonM. R.HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
GrahamR.TriplettR. (2017). Capable guardians in the digital environment: The role of digital literacy in reducing phishing victimization. Deviant Behavior, 38, 1371-1382.
10.
HindelangM. J.GottfredsonM. R.GarofaloJ. (1978). Victims of personal crime: An empirical foundation for a theory of personal victimization. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
11.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2009). Examining the applicability of lifestyle–routine activities theory for cybercrime victimization. Deviant Behavior, 30, 1-25.
12.
HoltT. J.BosslerA. M. (2013). Examining the relationship between routine activities and malware infection indicators. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 29, 420-436.
13.
HoltT. J.TurnerM. G. (2012). Examining risk and protective factors of online identity theft. Deviant Behavior, 33, 308-323.
14.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.LeeperN.PiqueroA. R. (2010). Low self-control and fraud: offending, victimization and their overlap. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 37, 188-203.
15.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.PrattT. C. (2008). Low self-control, routine activities, and fraud victimization. Criminology, 46, 189-220.
16.
HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D.PrattT. C.HoltfreterR. E. (2015). Risky remote purchasing and identity theft victimization among older Internet users. Psychology, Crime & Law, 21, 681-698.
17.
JornaP.HutchingsA. (2013). Australasian Consumer Fraud Taskforce: Results of the 2012 online consumer fraud survey (Technical and background Paper no. 56). Canberra, Australia: Australian Institute of Criminology. Retrieved from https://aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp056
18.
MarcumC.HigginsG.RickettsM. (2010). Potential factors of online victimization of youth: An examination of adolescent online behaviors utilizing routine activities theory. Deviant Behavior, 31, 381-410.
19.
MeschG. S. (2012). Is online trust and trust in social institutions associated with online disclosure of identifiable information online?Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1471-1477.
20.
MeschG. S.BekerG. (2010). Are norms of disclosure of online and offline personal information associated with the disclosure of personal information online?Human Communication Research, 36, 570-592.
21.
NgoF. T.PaternosterR. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5, 773-793.
22.
PrattT. C.HoltfreterK.ReisigM. D. (2010). Routine online activity and Internet fraud targeting: Extending the generality of routine activity theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 267-296.
23.
PrattT. C.TuranovicJ. J.FoxK. A.WrightK. A. (2014), Social control and victimization: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 52, 87-116.
24.
ReynsB. W. (2013). Online routines and identity theft victimization further expanding routine activity theory beyond direct-contact offenses. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50, 216-238.
ShadelD.PakK.SauerJ. H. (2014). Caught in the scammers net: Risk factors that may lead to becoming a fraud victim. Washington, DC: AARP.
27.
TitusR. M. (2001). Personal fraud and its victims. In ShoverN.WrightJ. P. (Eds.), Crimes of privilege: Readings in white collar crime (pp. 57-74). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
28.
TuranovicJ. J.PrattT. C. (2014). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Social control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 29-56.
29.
Van WilsemJ. (2013). Bought it, but never got it: Assessing risk factors for online consumer fraud victimization. European Sociological Review, 29, 168-178.
30.
YuS. (2014). Does low social control explain voluntary disclosure of personal information on the Internet?Computers in Human Behavior, 37, 210-215.
