Fraud results in billions of losses each year. While research has examined fraud victimization risk, it is less clear how online routine activities are associated with fraud risk, and how gender differentially influences risk. Using a sample of Michigan-based respondents (n = 1,203), and subsamples of men (n = 570) and women (n = 633), the study assessed the association between routine activities and fraud victimization. Results suggested that online behaviors relating to gaming and social media usage were associated with risk of fraud victimization, and that the correlates of risk varied by gender. Online platforms related to these behaviors can provide education about present threats and security practices which can provide further guardianship to victimization.
AkdemirN.YenalS. (2020). Card-not-present fraud victimization: A routine activities approach to understand the risk factors. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi, 9(1), 243–268.
2.
AkhaweD.FeltA. P. (2013). Alice in warningland: a {Large-Scale} field study of browser security warning effectiveness. 22nd USENIX security symposium (USENIX Security 13).
AnwarM.HeW.AshI.YuanX.LiL.XuL. (2017). Gender difference and employees’ cybersecurity behaviors. Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 437–443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.040
5.
BellA. M.GiftT. (2023). Fraud in online surveys: Evidence from a nonprobability, subpopulation sample. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 10(1), 148–153. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2022.8
6.
BelliveauJ.SoucyK. I.YakovenkoI. (2022). The validity of qualtrics panel data for research on video gaming and gaming disorder.Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 30(4), 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000575
7.
Buil-GilD.ZengY. (2022). Meeting you was a fake: Investigating the increase in romance fraud during COVID-19. Journal of Financial Crime, 29(2), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1108/jfc-02-2021-0042
8.
ButtonM.CrossC. (2017). Cyber frauds, scams and their victims. Routledge.
9.
ChangH. Y.WongL. L.YapK. Z.YapK. Y.-L. (2016). Gaming preferences, motivations, and experiences of pharmacy students in Asia. Games for Health Journal, 5(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1089/g4h.2015.0028
10.
CohenL. E.FelsonM. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
11.
CohenL. E.KluegelJ. R.LandK. C. (1981). Social inequality and predatory criminal victimization: An exposition and test of a formal theory. American Sociological Review, 46(5), 505–524. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094935
CrossC. (2016). “They’re very lonely”: Understanding the fraud victimisation of seniors. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 5(4), 60–75. https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.268
CrossC.HoltT. J. (2025). Examining phishing attempts on data breach victims. Social Science Computer Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439325139984
16.
CrossC.RichardsK.SmithR. G. (2016). The reporting experiences and support needs of victims of online fraud. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 518, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895815603773
17.
EckJ. E.ClarkeR. V. (2003). Classifying common police problems: A routine activity approach. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 16, 7–39.
18.
GolladayK.HoltfreterK. (2017). The consequences of identity theft victimization: An examination of emotional and physical health outcomes. Victims & Offenders, 12(5), 741–760. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2016.1177766
19.
GrahamA.PickettJ. T.CullenF. T. (2021). Advantages of matched over unmatched opt-in samples for studying criminal justice attitudes: A research note. Crime & Delinquency, 67(12), 1962–1981. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720977439
HowellC. J.MunizC. N.BurrussG.FisherT.EckelmanK.MaimonD. (2025). The impact of message framing on end-user security: An experimental approach to prevent identity theft via smishing. Computers in Human Behavior, Article 108864108864. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2025.108864
22.
JensenA.KristiansenS.NimgaardM.LudvigsenE.Helding RandS. (2025). Hey, do you wanna trade? An interactional typology of virtual items trading scams. Crime, Media, Culture. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17416590251345720
23.
JensenG. F.BrownfieldD. (1986). Gender, lifestyles, and victimization: Beyond routine activity. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.1.2.85
24.
KassemR.CarterE. (2024). Mapping romance fraud research – a systematic review. Journal of Financial Crime, 31(4), 974–992. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFC-06-2023-0160
25.
KimY.DykemaJ.StevensonJ.BlackP.MobergD. P. (2019). Straightlining: Overview of measurement, comparison of indicators, and effects in mail–web mixed-mode surveys. Social Science Computer Review, 37(2), 214–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439317752406
26.
KristiansenS.JensenA. V. (2023). Victimization in online gaming-related trade scams: A study among young Danes. Nordic Journal of Criminology, 24(2), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.18261/njc.24.2.6
27.
LazarusS.WhittakerJ. M.McGuireM. R.PlattL. (2023). What do we know about online romance fraud studies? A systematic review of the empirical literature (2000 to 2021). Journal of Economic Criminology, 2, Article 100013100013. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2023.100013
28.
LeukfeldtE. R.YarM. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409
29.
LinK.WuY.SunI. Y.QuJ. (2025). Telecommunication and cyber fraud victimization among Chinese college students: An application of routine activity theory. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 25(3), 717–735. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221146144
30.
MaherC. A. (2025). Buyer beware, or buyer unaware? Examining the correlates of consumer fraud victimization acknowledgment in the United States. Crime & Delinquency, 71(6–7), 2493–2517. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287231197422
31.
MaherC. A.HoltT. J. (2025). Stolen valor? Examining the associations between military service, data breach victimization, and identity theft victimization. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287241313345
32.
MaherC. A.McNealeyR. L.FisherT.HoltT. J. (2026). You’ve got (no) mail: Unpacking risk of non-delivery fraud victimization among an online sample. Journal of Criminal Justice, 104, Article 102644102644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2026.102644
33.
MorganR. E. (2021). Financial fraud in the United States, 2017. US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
34.
MusharrafS.BaumanS.Anis-ul-HaqueM.MalikJ. A. (2019). General and ICT self-efficacy in different participants roles in cyberbullying/victimization among Pakistani university students. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1098. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01098
35.
MustaineE. E. (1997). Victimization risks and routine activities: A theoretical examination using a gender-specific and domain-specific model. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 22(1), 41–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02887340
36.
NgoF. T.AgarwalA.HolmanK. (2024). Cyber hygiene and cyber victimization among limited English proficiency (LEP) Internet users: A mixed-method study. Victims & Offenders, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2329765
37.
NgoF. T.PaternosterR. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773–793.
38.
NicolettiC.PeracchiF.FolianoF. (2011). Estimating income poverty in the presence of missing data and measurement error. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 29(1), 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1198/jbes.2010.07185
PartiK. & Virginia Tech. (2022). “Elder scam” risk profiles: Individual and situational factors of younger and older age groups’ fraud victimization. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence and Cybercrime, 5(3), 20–40. https://doi.org/10.52306/liqs5025
41.
PickJ.SarkarA.RosalesJ. (2019). Social media use in American counties: Geography and determinants. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 8(9), 424. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8090424
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(2), 216–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811425539
44.
ReynsB. W.HensonB. (2016). The thief with a thousand faces and the victim with none: Identifying determinants for online identity theft victimization with routine activity theory. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(10), 1119–1139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624x15572861
45.
ReynsB. W.HensonB.FisherB. S. (2011). Being pursued online: Applying cyberlifestyle–routine activities theory to cyberstalking victimization. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(11), 1149–1169. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811421448
46.
SavardD. M.KelleyT. M.MerollaD. M. (2020). Routine activities and criminal victimization: The significance of gendered spaces. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 35(23–24), 5425–5447. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517721170
47.
Skakoon-SparlingS.PalmaP. A.ZahranA.HartT. A.MooreD. M.CoxJ.LachowskyN. J.DvorakovaM.DaroyaE.GraceD. (2023). Loneliness and the sexual behavior of sexual minority men in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(9), Article e12814e12814. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12814
48.
SongG.LiangJ.WuL.LiuL.ZhangC. (2025). The impact of residents’ daily internet activities on the spatial distribution of online fraud: An analysis based on mobile phone application usage. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 14(4), 151.
49.
Suarez-TangilG.EdwardsM.PeersmanC.StringhiniG.RashidA.WhittyM. (2019). Automatically dismantling online dating fraud. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 15, 1128–1137. https://doi.org/10.1109/TIFS.2019.2930479
50.
SuzukiA.ShikataK.ShimadaT. (2025). Patterns and predictors of cyber fraud victimization: Testing routine activity theory and general theory of crime in Japan. Journal of Economic Criminology, Article 100186100186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconc.2025.100186
51.
ThompsonA. J.PickettJ. T. (2020). Are relational inferences from crowdsourced and opt-in samples generalizable? Comparing criminal justice attitudes in the GSS and five online samples. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 36(4), 907–932. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-019-09436-7
van WilsemJ. (2013). ‘Bought it, but never got it’ assessing risk factors for online consumer fraud victimization. European Sociological Review, 29(2), 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcr053
54.
XinY.XiaY.ChaiY. (2024). Routine activities and fraud re-victimization among older adults: Do types of routine activities matter?Criminology & Criminal Justice. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958241257860
55.
YarM. (2005). The novelty of ‘cybercrime’: An assessment in light of routine activity theory. European Journal of Criminology, 2(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/147737080556056
56.
ZhangC.ConradF. (2014). Speeding in web surveys: The tendency to answer very fast and its association with straightlining. Survey Research Methods, 8(2), 127–135.
