Spot the Scam: Identifying Email Scams and Scam Susceptibility in Younger and Older Adults.

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q4 GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY
Experimental Aging Research Pub Date : 2026-07-01 Epub Date: 2026-03-02 DOI:10.1080/0361073X.2026.2635903
Kylie O Alberts, Isiah J Espiritu, Alan D Castel
{"title":"Spot the Scam: Identifying Email Scams and Scam Susceptibility in Younger and Older Adults.","authors":"Kylie O Alberts, Isiah J Espiritu, Alan D Castel","doi":"10.1080/0361073X.2026.2635903","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Young and older adults are often victimized by various forms of scams and fraud. However, little research has been conducted on how a scam prevention intervention may impact young and older adults' accuracy and confidence in determining the legitimacy of emails. The present study investigated young and older adults' accuracy and confidence, as well as potential contributing factors to scam susceptibility, before and after engaging with one of three intervention activities: control (no intervention), read-only (read common scam qualities), or interactive (interactively learned scam qualities in emails).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Young and older adult participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Before and after the intervention, participants evaluated a series of legitimate and scam emails, indicating whether each email was legitimate or a scam. Participants also rated their confidence in their accuracy, the personal relevance of each email, and their curiosity about engaging further with the email.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both age groups showed no difference in sensitivity when determining the legitimacy of the emails before and after the interventions. Importantly, both age groups in the read-only and interactive conditions showed a bias toward labeling emails as scams, indicating a generally cautious approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the interventions did not improve detection sensitivity, participants were more cautious when evaluating emails. This tendency may help reduce vulnerability to scams and fraud and suggests that interventions can encourage greater caution when evaluating suspicious emails across age groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":12240,"journal":{"name":"Experimental Aging Research","volume":" ","pages":"483-516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Experimental Aging Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0361073X.2026.2635903","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/3/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"GERIATRICS & GERONTOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Young and older adults are often victimized by various forms of scams and fraud. However, little research has been conducted on how a scam prevention intervention may impact young and older adults' accuracy and confidence in determining the legitimacy of emails. The present study investigated young and older adults' accuracy and confidence, as well as potential contributing factors to scam susceptibility, before and after engaging with one of three intervention activities: control (no intervention), read-only (read common scam qualities), or interactive (interactively learned scam qualities in emails).

Method: Young and older adult participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions. Before and after the intervention, participants evaluated a series of legitimate and scam emails, indicating whether each email was legitimate or a scam. Participants also rated their confidence in their accuracy, the personal relevance of each email, and their curiosity about engaging further with the email.

Results: Both age groups showed no difference in sensitivity when determining the legitimacy of the emails before and after the interventions. Importantly, both age groups in the read-only and interactive conditions showed a bias toward labeling emails as scams, indicating a generally cautious approach.

Conclusions: Although the interventions did not improve detection sensitivity, participants were more cautious when evaluating emails. This tendency may help reduce vulnerability to scams and fraud and suggests that interventions can encourage greater caution when evaluating suspicious emails across age groups.

发现骗局:在年轻人和老年人中识别电子邮件骗局和骗局易感性。
背景:年轻人和老年人经常成为各种形式的诈骗和欺诈的受害者。然而,关于预防诈骗干预如何影响年轻人和老年人确定电子邮件合法性的准确性和信心的研究很少。本研究调查了年轻人和老年人在参与三种干预活动之前和之后的准确性和信心,以及潜在的影响欺诈易感性的因素:控制(不干预),只读(阅读常见的骗局特征)或互动(互动学习电子邮件中的骗局特征)。方法:年轻人和老年人参与者被随机分配到三种条件之一。在干预之前和之后,参与者评估了一系列合法和骗局的电子邮件,表明每封电子邮件是合法的还是骗局。参与者还评估了他们对邮件准确性的信心,每封邮件的个人相关性,以及他们对进一步阅读邮件的好奇心。结果:在干预前后,两个年龄组在确定电子邮件合法性的敏感性上没有差异。重要的是,只读和互动条件下的两个年龄组都倾向于将电子邮件标记为骗局,这表明了一种普遍的谨慎态度。结论:虽然干预措施没有提高检测灵敏度,但参与者在评估电子邮件时更加谨慎。这种趋势可能有助于减少对诈骗和欺诈的脆弱性,并表明干预可以鼓励在评估跨年龄组的可疑电子邮件时更加谨慎。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Experimental Aging Research
Experimental Aging Research 医学-老年医学
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
68
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Experimental Aging Research is a life span developmental and aging journal dealing with research on the aging process from a psychological and psychobiological perspective. It meets the need for a scholarly journal with refereed scientific papers dealing with age differences and age changes at any point in the adult life span. Areas of major focus include experimental psychology, neuropsychology, psychobiology, work research, ergonomics, and behavioral medicine. Original research, book reviews, monographs, and papers covering special topics are published.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书