Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 28, 2025

An Experimental Analysis of Children's Ability to Provide a False Report about a Crime
Published on: May 3, 2016
In their own words: deception detection by victims and near victims of fraud
Marianne Junger1, Luka Koning1, Pieter Hartel2
1Industrial Engineering and Business Information Systems (IEBIS), Faculty of Behavioural, Management and Social Sciences (BMS), University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands.
Aim:
Research on deception detection has usually been executed in experimental settings in the laboratory. In contrast, the present research investigates deception detection by actual victims and near victims of fraud, as reported in their own words.
Materials And Methods:
Our study is based on a nationally representative survey of 11 types of (mostly) online fraud victimization (N = 2,864). We used qualitative information from actual victims and near victims on why they didn't fall for the fraud, or how, in hindsight, it could have been prevented.
Results:
The main detection strategies mentioned by near victims (N = 958) were 1) fraud knowledge (69%): these near victims clearly recognized fraud. Other strategies related to fraud knowledge were: noticing mistakes (27.9%), rules and principles about safe conduct (11.7%), and personal knowledge (7.1%). A second type of strategy was distrust (26.1%). A third strategy was 'wise through experience' (1.6%). Finally, a limited number of respondents (7.8%) searched for additional information: they contacted other people (5.5%), sought information online (4%), contacted the fraudster (2.9%), contacted their bank or credit card company (2.2%), or contacted the police (0.2%). Using knowledge as a strategy decreases the probability of victimization by a factor of 0.43. In contrast, all other strategies increased the likelihood of victimization by a factor of 1.6 or more. Strategies generally were uncorrelated, several strategies differed by type of fraud. About 40% of the actual victims (N = 243) believed that their victimization might have been prevented by: 1) seeking information (25.2%), 2) paying more attention (18.9%), 3) a third party doing something (16.2%), 4) following safety rules or principles, like using a safer way of paying or trading (14.4%), or by 5) 'simply not going along with it' (10.8%). Most of these strategies were associated with a higher, not lower, likelihood of victimization.
Conclusion:
Clearly, knowledge of fraud is the best strategy to avoid fraud victimization. Therefore, a more proactive approach is needed to inform the public about fraud and attackers' modus operandi, so that potential victims already have knowledge of fraud upon encountering it. Just providing information online will not suffice to protect online users.
Related Concept Videos
False Memories
One primary source of false memories is misattribution, where individuals incorrectly associate external information...
Deindividuation
Ethics in Research
Eyewitness Memory
One such error is memory distortion, which occurs because human memory does not function...
Confirmation Biases
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...

