健康养老视角下的老年人受骗易感性
Older Adults’ Susceptibility to Deception from a Healthy Aging Perspective
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2023.138420, PDF,   
作者: 庞 宇*, 戴 冰, 张 惠#：成都医学院心理学院，四川 成都
关键词: 老年人；健康养老；受骗易感性；测量；Older Adults； Healthy Aging； Deceptive Susceptibility； Measurement
摘要: 老年人受骗问题已俨然成为当今国内外严重的公共社会问题，大量资金损失、精神消耗给老年人生理、心理带来了严重的破坏性影响。本文基于受骗易感性概念和特征、以及主观性报告与客观性测量来进行解释说明，并梳理整合影响受骗易感性的不同因素，在健康养老视角下提出干预方式。未来的研究也可以进行多学科交叉测量，深入探讨老年人受骗易感性发生机制，将老年人群更加细化，以降低受骗易感性，提高晚年生活幸福指数。
Abstract: The problem of elderly people’s susceptibility to fraud has become a serious public social problem in China and abroad, and the large amount of financial loss and mental consumption has brought about serious destructive effects on the physiology and psychology of the elderly. This paper explains the concept and characteristics of susceptibility to deception, as well as subjective reports and objective measures, and proposes interventions based on the perspective of healthy aging by integrating different factors affecting susceptibility to deception. Future research can also conduct multidisciplinary cross-measurement to explore the mechanisms of susceptibility to deception in the elderly, and to refine the elderly population in order to reduce susceptibility to deception and improve well-being in old age.
文章引用：庞宇, 戴冰, 张惠 (2023). 健康养老视角下的老年人受骗易感性. 心理学进展, 13(8), 3343-3352. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2023.138420

参考文献

[1] 敖玲敏, 吕厚超, 黄希庭(2011). 社会情绪选择理论概述. 心理科学进展, 19(2), 217-223.
[2] 陈艾琳(2018). 大五人格特质与风险偏好之间的关系研究. 硕士学位论文, 杭州: 浙江大学.
[3] 陈传锋, 严建雯, Eleanor O’Leary, 贺豪振(2006). 老年人社会支持与期望的调查研究. 心理科学, 29(1), 201-204.
[4] 陈坤, 李士雪(2017). 健康老龄化的理念演变与实现路径. 理论学刊, (3), 87-92.
[5] 端文慧, 赵媛(2016). 老年人信息意识状况与提升对策——以老年人上当受骗为视角. 图书馆, (5), 95-101.
[6] 高原(2021). 大学生网络诈骗易感性的影响因素: 心理特质、经验因素与线索加工. 硕士学位论文, 杭州: 浙江大学.
[7] 郭秀艳, 张敬敏, 朱磊, 李荆广(2007). 误导信息效应中年龄差异与自信差异初探. 应用心理学, 13(4), 291-296.
[8] 何铨, 沈津如(2020). 老年人受骗脆弱性的理论与测量方法. 应用心理学, 26(3), 208-218.
[9] 江波, 刘景芝(2016). 社会支持与农民工随迁子女生活满意度: 自我认知的中介作用. 南京农业大学学报(社会科学版), 16(4), 71-80.
[10] 李鹤, 丁妮, 董奇(2009). 情绪加工老化效应的神经机制. 心理科学进展, 17(2), 356-361.
[11] 李彦章, 熊梅, 张玉平, 苏艺篮(2019). 社区老年人衰弱状况及影响因素. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 28(11), 1020-1024.
[12] 李媛媛, 单承芸(2020). 我国中老年人金融受骗影响因素研究——基于charls2015的实证分析. 南方人口, 35(1), 13-26.
[13] 林湘华(2007). 大城市丧偶老人群体状况分析. 南方人口, 22(4), 45-51.
[14] 刘碧英(2005). 老年人心理特点与心理保健. 中国临床心理学杂志, 13(3), 373-374, 372.
[15] 刘仁刚, 龚耀先(2000). 老年人主观幸福感及其影响因素的研究. 中国临床心理学杂志, 8(2), 73-78.
[16] 柳海霞(2017). 《“十三五”健康老龄化规划》印发我国将构建老年健康服务体系. 中华医学信息导报, 32(6), 7.
[17] 吕升义(2013). 老年大学开展网络自主学习的研究与实践. 黑龙江科技信息, (31), 151-152.
[18] 穆光宗(2014). 将“全面健康老龄化”上升为国家战略. 中国经济报告, (4), 79-81.
[19] 彭玉伟(2013). 论老年诈骗犯罪被害人的被害性. 安徽警官职业学院学报, 12(1), 46-49.
[20] 申继亮, 唐丹(2004). 一般自我效能感量表(GSES)在老年人中的使用. 中国临床心理学杂志, (4), 342-344.
[21] 苏永刚, 吕艾芹, 陈晓阳(2013). 中国人口老龄化问题和健康养老模式分析. 山东社会科学, (4), 42-47.
[22] 唐细容, 蒋莉, 曾慧, 姚树桥(2013). 成人认知功能的发展与老化: 一项控制同辈效应的横断研究. 心理发展与教育, 29(3), 262-267.
[23] 王金水(2017). 老年人被骗: 基于网络媒介的内容分析. 老龄科学研究, 5(11), 63-72.
[24] 王卓月(2020). 损益框架下老年人的风险决策特点——基于ERP的研究. 硕士学位论文, 开封: 河南大学.
[25] 吴婷, 李逢战, 王大华, 李云川(2016). 老年夫妻沟通的特点及其与婚姻满意度的关系. 中国临床心理学杂志, 24(2), 321-326.
[26] 伍海霞(2018). 城市第一代独生子女父母的养老研究. 人口研究, 42(5), 30-44.
[27] 徐烨, 高飞, 徐杰, 张红, 岑爱飞, 张林(2016). 基于老年人受骗案例的社会心理学. 中国老年学杂志, 36(21), 5477-5478.
[28] 杨航, 邵景进, 张乾寒, 蒋悦, 李加美, 白学俊(2019). 老化恐惧与老年人受骗易感性: 安全感和掌控感的中介作用. 中国临床心理学杂志, 27(5), 1036-1040.
[29] 张林, 牟忠琛, 刘燊, 高飞(2021). 社会支持与老年人受骗倾向的关系: 一个有中介的调节模型. 心理与行为研究, 15(6), 766-773.
[30] 张荣, 佟颖, 薛翠翠, 辛小林, 雷慧, 田建丽(2021). 承德市养老院老年人群孤独感, 人际信任现状调查及预测受骗可能性的价值研究. 现代预防医学, 48(5), 897-901.
[31] 张真真, 班晓娜(2018). 需求层次理论视角下老年人受骗问题分析. 辽宁经济, (6), 94-96.
[32] 郑秀丽(2010). 缓解老年人心理压力的健康教育方法. 青岛医药卫生, 42(2), 159.
[33] 钟晓慧, 何式凝(2014). 协商式亲密关系: 独生子女父母对家庭关系和孝道的期待. 开放时代, (1), 155-175.
[34] Algarni, A. A. M. (2016). The Impact of Source Characteristics on Users’ Susceptibility to Social Engineering Victimization in Social Networks. Ph.D. Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane City.
[35] Alves, L. M., & Wilson, S. R. (2008). The Effects of Loneliness on Telemarketing Fraud Vulnerability among Older Adults. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 20, 63-85.[CrossRef] 
[36] Ambridge, B. (2014). Psy-Q: You Know Your IQ—Now Test Your Psychological Intelligence. Profile Books Ltd.
[37] Anderson, K. B. (2007). Consumer Fraud in the United States: The Second FTC (Federal Trade Commission) Survey. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
[38] Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2009). The HEXACO-60: A Short Measure of the Major Dimensions of Personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 340-345.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[39] Beals, M. E., Carr, D. C., Mottola, G. R., Deevy, M. J., & Carstensen, L. L. (2015). How Does Survey Context Impact Self-Reported Fraud Victimization? The Gerontologist, 57, 329-340.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[40] Burnes, D., Henderson, C. R., Sheppard, C., Zhao, R., Pillemer, K., & Lachs, M. S. (2017). Prevalence of Financial Fraud and Scams among Older Adults in the United States: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. American Journal of Public Health, 107, 1295-1295.[CrossRef] 
[41] Button, M., Lewis, C., & Tapley, J. (2012). Not a Victimless Crime: The Impact of Fraud on Individual Victims and Their Families. Security Journal, 27, 36-54.[CrossRef] 
[42] Canfield, C. I., Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. (2016). Quantifying Phishing Susceptibility for Detection and Behavior Decisions. Human Factors, 58, 1158-1172.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[43] Carstensen, L. L., & Mikels, J. A. (2005). At the Intersection of Emotion and Cognition Aging and the Positivity Effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 117-121.[CrossRef] 
[44] Carstensen, L. L., Isaacowitz, D. M., & Charles, S. T. (1999). Taking Time Seriously: A Theory of Socioemotional Selectivity. American Psychologist, 54, 165-181.[CrossRef] 
[45] Corr, P. J., & Matthews, G. (2009). The Cambridge Handbook of Personality Psychology. Cambridge University Press.[CrossRef] 
[46] Costa, P. T., & Mccrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO PI-R).
[47] Courtin, E., & Knapp, M. (2017). Social Isolation, Loneliness and Health in Old Age: A Scoping Review. Health & Social Care in the Community, 25, 799-812.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[48] Di Rosa, E., Mapelli, D., Arcara, G., Amodio, P., Tamburin, S., & Schiff, S. (2017). Aging and Risky Decision-Making: New ERP Evidence from the Iowa Gambling Task. Neuroscience Letters, 640, 93-98.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[49] Forgas, J. P. (2019). Happy Believers and Sad Skeptics? Affective Influences on Gullibility. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28, 306-313.[CrossRef] 
[50] Graziano, W. G., & Eisenberg, N. (1997). Agreeableness: A Dimension of Personality. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of Personality Psychology (pp. 795-824). Academic Press.[CrossRef] 
[51] Jones, H. S., & Towse, J. N. (2018). Examinations of Email Fraud Susceptibility: Perspectives from Academic Research and Industry Practice. In J. McAlaney, L. A. Frumkin, & V. Benson (Eds.), Psychological and Behavioral Examinations in Cyber Security. IGI Global.[CrossRef] 
[52] Klaver, C. C., Wolfs, R. C., Vingerling, J. R., Hofman, A., & de Jong, P. T. (1998). Age-Specific Prevalence and Causes of Blindness and Visual Impairment in an Older Population: The Rotterdam Study. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 653-658.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[53] Langenderfer, J., & Shimp, T. A. (2001). Consumer Vulnerability to Scams, Swindles, and Fraud: A New Theory of Visceral Influences on Persuasion. Psychology & Marketing, 18, 763-783.[CrossRef] 
[54] Lichtenberg, P. A., Sugarman, M. A., Paulson, D., Ficker, L. J., & Rahman-Filipiak, A. (2016). Psychological and Functional Vulnerability Predicts Fraud Cases in Older Adults: Results of a Longitudinal Study. Clinical Gerontologist, 39, 48-63.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[55] Mayfield, C., Perdue, G., & Wooten, K. (2008). Investment Management and Personality Type. Financial Services Review, 17, 219-236.
[56] Michaud, P.-C., & van Soest, A. (2008). Health and Wealth of Elderly Couples: Causality Tests Using Dynamic Panel Data Models. Journal of Health Economics, 27, 1312-1325.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[57] Moschis, G. P., Mosteller, J., & Fatt, C. K. (2011). Research Frontiers on Older Consumers’ Vulnerability. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 45, 467-491.[CrossRef] 
[58] Nijstad, B., & Knippenberg, D. V. (2008). Introduction to Social Psychology (pp. 244-262).
[59] Oon-Arom, A., Wongpakaran, T., Kuntawong, P., & Wongpakaran, N. (2020). Attachment Anxiety, Depression, and Perceived Social Support: A Moderated Mediation Model of Suicide Ideation among the Elderly—ERRATUM. International Psychogeriatrics, 32, 1009.[CrossRef] 
[60] Ross, M., Grossmann, I., & Schryer, E. (2014). Contrary to Psychological and Popular Opinion, There Is No Compelling Evidence That Older Adults Are Disproportionately Victimized by Consumer Fraud. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 427-442.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[61] Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal Trust, Trustworthiness, and Gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1-7.[CrossRef] 
[62] Shao, J., Du, W., Lin, T., Li, X., Li, J., & Lei, H. (2019). Credulity Rather than General Trust May Increase Vulnerability to Fraud in Older Adults: A Moderated Mediation Model. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 31, 146-162.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[63] Skidmore, M., Goldstraw-White, J., & Gill, M. (2020). Vulnerability as a Driver of the Police Response to Fraud. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 6, 49-64.[CrossRef] 
[64] Wang, J., He, L., Jia, L., Jing, T., & Benson, V. (2015). The “Positive Effect” Is Present in Older Chinese Adults: Evidence from an Eye Tracking Study. PLOS ONE, 10, e0121372.[CrossRef] [PubMed]