电信网络诈骗易感性的理论模型综述：心理学视角
A Review of Telecom and Online Fraud Susceptibility Theories: A Psychological Perspective
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2023.1310553, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 王浩宇：中国人民公安大学犯罪学学院，北京
关键词: 电信网络诈骗；诈骗易感性；影响因素；Telecom and Online Fraud； Fraud Susceptibility； Influencing Factors
摘要: 电信网络诈骗易感性是指个体在面临特定电信网络诈骗情境下成为受害者的倾向性。目前国内外学者已经针对电信网络诈骗易感性的影响因素开展了一定的研究和探索，并构建了相应的理论模型。本文对前人发展的理论模型和研究结果进行梳理和比较，并对未来研究进行展望。未来研究有必要立足我国电信网络诈骗的现实状况，开展系统化、精细化、本土化研究，并加强研究成果向公安实践的反诈宣传、预警、监测等方面工作的转化。
Abstract: Telecom and online fraud susceptibility refers to the tendency of being victimized in the context of the telecom and online fraud. Domestic and foreign studies have investigated the influencing factors of telecom and online fraud susceptibility. The article sorted out and compared previous theoretical models, and discussed the future research directions. Grounded in the Chinese context, future re-search is needed to develop a measurement system of the telecom and online fraud susceptibility, and to conduct systematic, refined and localized research, aiming at helping Public Security Au-thority to screen and educate potential victims, and construct early warning system.
文章引用：王浩宇 (2023). 电信网络诈骗易感性的理论模型综述：心理学视角. 心理学进展, 13(10), 4389-4402. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2023.1310553

参考文献

[1] 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.
[2] 赵雷, 陈红敏(2022). 电信诈骗中青年受骗的影响因素和形成机制研究. 中国青年社会科学, 41(3), 102-112.
[3] Alseadoon, I., Othman, M. F. I., & Chan, T. (2015). What Is the Influence of Users’ Characteristics on Their Ability to Detect Phishing Emails? In H. A. Sulaiman, M. A. Othman, M. F. I. Othman, Y. Abd Rahim, & N. C. Pee (Eds.), Advanced Computer and Communication Engineering Technology (pp. 949-962). Springer International Publishing.[CrossRef] 
[4] Buller, D. B., & Burgoon, J. K. (1996). Interpersonal Deception Theory. Communication Theory, 6, 203-242.[CrossRef] 
[5] Button, M., Lewis, C., & Tapley, J. (2009). Fraud Typolo-gies and the Victims of Fraud: Literature Review. National Fraud Authority.
[6] Dove, M. (2018). Predicting Individual Differences in Vulnerability to Fraud. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Portsmouth.
[7] Ferguson, A. J. (2005). Fos-tering Email Security Awareness: The West Point Carronade. EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 28, 54-57.
[8] Grazioli, S. (2004). Where Did They Go Wrong? An Analysis of the Failure of Knowledgeable Internet Consumers to Detect Deception over the Internet. Group Decision and Negotiation, 13, 149-172.[CrossRef] 
[9] Khalifa, H. K. H. (2022). A Conceptual Review on Heu-ristic Systematic Model in Mass Communication Studies. International Journal of Media and Mass Communication, 4, 164-175.[CrossRef] 
[10] Langenderfer, J., & Shimp, T. A. (2001). Consumer Vulnerability to Scams, Swindles, and Fraud: A New Theory of Visceral Influences on Persuasion. Psychology and Mar-keting, 18, 763-783.[CrossRef] 
[11] Loewenstein, G. (1996). Out of Control: Visceral Influ-ences on Behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 272-292.[CrossRef] 
[12] Luo, X. R., Zhang, W., Burd, S., & Seazzu, A. (2013). Investigating Phishing Victimization with the Heuristic-Systematic Model: A Theoretical Framework and an Exploration. Computers and Security, 38, 28-38.[CrossRef] 
[13] Modic, D., & Lea, S. E. (2011). How Neurotic Are Scam Victims, Really? The Big Five and Internet Scams. In 2011 Conference of the International Confederation for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics and Economic Psychology (pp. 1-24). https://ucilnica.fri.uni-lj.si/pluginfile.php/160506/mod_resource/content/1 /Modic%2C%20D.%2C%20%20Lea%2C%20S.%20E.%20G.%20% 282011%29.%20How%20neurotic%20%5BRevised%5D.pdf
[14] Neupane, A., Saxena, N., Kuruvilla, K., Georgescu, M., & Kana, R. K. (2014). Neural Signatures of User-Centered Security: An fMRI Study of Phishing, and Malware Warnings. In Proceedings of the Network and Distributed System Security Symposium (NDSS) (pp. 1-16).[CrossRef] 
[15] Norris, G., & Brookes, A. (2021). Personality, Emotion and Individual Differences in Response to Online Fraud. Personality and Individual Differences, 169, Article 109847.[CrossRef] 
[16] Norris, G., Brookes, A., & Dowell, D. (2019). The Psychology of Internet Fraud Victimisation: A Systematic Review. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34, 231-245.[CrossRef] 
[17] Parrish, J. L., Bailey, J. L., & Courtney, J. F. (2009). A Personali-ty-Based Model for Determining Susceptibility to Phishing Attacks. In Proceedings of the Southwest Decision Sciences In-stitute Annual Meeting (SDSI’09) (pp. 285-296). University of Arkansas.
[18] Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. In Communication and Persuasion (pp. 1-24). Springer.[CrossRef] 
[19] Shadel, D. M. (2012). Outsmarting the Scam Artists: How to Pro-tect Yourself from the Most Clever Cons. John Wiley and Sons.
[20] Suarez-Tangil, G., Edwards, M., Peersman, C., Stringhini, G., Rashid, A., & Whitty, M. (2019). Automatically Dismantling Online Dating Fraud. IEEE Transactions on Information Forensics and Security, 15, 1128-1137.[CrossRef] 
[21] Trumbo, C. W. (2002). Information Processing and Risk Perception: An Adaptation of the Heuristic-Systematic Model. Journal of Communication, 52, 367-382.[CrossRef] 
[22] Vishwanath, A., Harrison, B., & Ng, Y. (2018). Suspicion, Cognition, and Automaticity Model of Phishing Susceptibility. Communication Research, 45, 1146-1166.[CrossRef] 
[23] Vishwanath, A., Herath, T., Chen, R., Wang, J., & Rao, H. R. (2011). Why Do People Get Phished? Testing Individual Differences in Phishing Vulnerability within an Integrated, Information Processing Model. Decision Support Systems, 51, 576-586.[CrossRef] 
[24] Yan, Z., Robertson, T., Yan, R., Park, S. Y., Bordoff, S., Chen, Q., & Sprissler, E. (2018). Finding the Weakest Links in the Weakest Link: How Well Do Undergraduate Students Make Cyber-security Judgment? Computers in Human Behavior, 84, 375-382.[CrossRef] 
[25] Zhang, Y., Egelman, S., Cranor, L., & Hong, J. (2007). Phinding Phish: Evaluating Anti-Phishing Tools. ISOC.