> victims .. they tend to be .. less kind
which doesn't sound right to me. Then in the text there is
> it is hypothesized that individuals who score high on a survey measuring kindness are more likely to be victims of romance scams
which is the opposite?
A typo in the abstract perhaps?
Hypothesis:
> Little is known about whether the victims of MMF are more kind compared with nonvictims; however, given that many of the romance scam narratives involve a victim helping out another it is hypothesized that individuals who score high on a survey measuring kindness are more likely to be victims of romance scams (H9) compared with those who have not become victims of romance scams.
Method of measurement:
> Participants were asked to complete a series of demographic questions (e.g., age, gender, education, knowledge about cybersecurity), personality items (e.g., impulsivity, locus of control, trust in others, trustworthiness, kindness, greed, addiction disposition), and whether they had been scammed by MMF. They were also asked specially whether they had been scammed by the romance scam.
Interpretation of findings:
> The finding that less kind individuals were more likely to be scammed by romance scams was less easy to explain. Perhaps, less kind individuals have fewer networks to help them check profiles or perhaps they seek out more harmful relationships. Kindness might also be a more transitory disposition. At the time of the scam, researchers have found that criminals isolate the victim from loved ones and push them to focus their time and resources on the fictitious relationship. They have also found that it is difficult for victims to rebuild their social networks after the scam has taken place. This might explain why victims of romance scams are less likely to rate highly items such as: “going out of their way to cheer up people who appear down,” “helping out a neighbor in the last month,” “getting excited by others good fortunes,” or “calling their friends when they are ill.”
Similar to how Nigerian prince scams appeal to people by offering lots of money in exchange for disproportionately small amounts of effort and money.
My hypothesis would be this:
- There are two things which encourage the average human being to form relationships: 1. the pleasure of doing good to other people / seeing other people happy 2. the pain of being lonely.
- "Kindness" is essentially a measure of #1. People who are naturally more kind have more friends, and thus are less at risk of experiencing loneliness. People who are less naturally kind, but still find loneliness painful, are more driven by #2 to act somewhat against their inclinations in order to maintain relationships. They thus have fewer relationships, those relationships are perceived as requiring more effort, and they are more at risk of experiencing loneliness.
- The "romance" scam involves someone treating someone well almost no matter how they act. The relationship is maintained whether the victim is kind or not; and thus the victim gets their need for a relationship fulfilled without the extra effort required from other relationships.
- So a person who is less kind has much more to lose from losing their relationship than a kind person. A kind person is much less at risk of being lonely, and is more likely to feel like they can create other relationships if the "scam" one fails. An unkind person is much more at a risk of being lonely, and much more likely to feel like replacing the "scam" relationship will be difficult.
- This drives an unkind person to be more desperate to maintain the "scam" relationship than a a kind person
Probably a correlation-not-causation with the fact that the tiny pool of people who get scammed aren't people with effective interpersonal strategies who have already set up a good romantic relationship.
E.g. they expected victims to be more kind, but it turned out they are less kind.