News

Spotlight on the Faculty: Stacey Wood Leads New Research on Consumer Fraud

CLAREMONT, California - June 12, 2018

 

Stacey-Wood-Study

Scripps College Professor of Psychology Stacey Wood, a leading scholar on elder abuse, is  expanding her examination of why older adults may be more vulnerable to certain types of consumer fraud. She recently led a team of researchers from three prominent universities in the exploration of risk factors for individuals susceptible to sweepstakes-type scams. Their study, “CALL TO CLAIM YOUR PRIZE: Perceived Benefits and Risk Drive Intention to Comply in a Mass Marketing Scam,” was published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology.

Are consumers lured by the amount of money promised in Mass Marketing Scams (MMS) to the point where they may even discount the risks associated with responding to them? An analysis of over 500 adults sampled over the course of two experiments designed to get at the underlying psychological factors involved in responding to MMS suggests the answer is “yes.” MMS represent one of the most rapidly growing crimes, costing billions of dollars worldwide and extracting an enormous toll on individuals who fall prey to sophisticated scamming techniques.

In the study, based on 25 real scam solicitations that were successful at “hooking the victim” in the Los Angeles area, the chance to win a large sum of money, such as $25,000, influenced the perceived risks of participation—including the possibility of identity theft and further persuasive tactics by scammers.  While prior research models primarily have explored the way the marketing ploys are presented to consumers, Wood’s research delves into the individual differences of the scam victims themselves.

“Our data supports the view that demographic disparities can play a part in response rates for these type of sweepstakes scams in particular. We found that less-educated consumers are more likely to be susceptible to the opportunity for a large reward, which is consistent with other research studies that tie similar behavior to such attributes as patience, delayed gratification, and opportunity for financial education,” Wood said.

The researchers found the most important factor in deciding whether to respond was the person’s assessment of the risk versus the potential reward. Almost half of their subjects indicated an interest in responding, which was more than researchers had anticipated. When the study added a requirement that people pay an activation fee of $5 to $100, nearly a quarter of the subjects still had an interest in responding.

The study also explored how activation fees might impact interest in responding to the scams. Among the demographic variables, age and education independently predicted responses after controlling for the activation fee, such that older adults and highly educated participants were less likely to “make the call,” and high activation fees deterred individuals reporting a high likelihood to respond.

“In our second experiment, in particular, participants were less likely to indicate they are willing to call when there is an activation fee, although there was no difference between $5 or $10. Similar to our first experiment, risk and benefits assessments remained the highest predictors of intention to respond.”

The study suggests something of a paradox, Wood concludes. On the one hand, consumers are for the most part able to recognize potential scams. The lure of the prize is largely driving individuals’ behaviors, leading many of them to discount the possible risks. The sentiment seems to be: “After all, what harm can be done by just responding to a letter?” On the other hand, protecting consumers from such alluring offers poses a much more difficult task than “just saying no.”