IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mrr/papers/wp434.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Mixed Methods Analysis of Consumer Fraud Reports of the Social Security Administration Impostor Scam

Author

Listed:
  • Marguerite DeLiema

    (University of Minnesota School of Social Work)

  • Paul Witt

    (Federal Trade Commission, Division of Consumer Response and Operations)

Abstract

Most Americans have received fraudulent calls from impostors claiming to be officials from the Social Security Administration (SSA). Callers threaten those who respond with arrest and suspension of their bank accounts and Social Security numbers, but charges can be removed if the target agrees to buy retail gift cards, wire money, or deposit cash in cryptocurrency ATMs. This paper uses mixed methods to analyze SSA imposter scam consumer reports from victims and attempted victims filed in the Consumer Sentinel. Qualitative analysis of 600 case narratives reveals that SSA impostors use the persuasion principals of authority, reciprocity, liking, and scarcity to put pressure on consumers to comply with their requests. Expressions of fear, anger, anticipation, and trust in the imposter were present in the victim case narratives. Qualitative findings were supported using a quantitative sentiment analysis of more than 200,000 consumer reports to count the frequency of emotion words in case narratives. Emotional expressions were significantly associated with reported victimization versus attempted victimization. Quantitative models show that older adult consumers are significantly less likely to report victimization relative to those 30 and younger, but older victims lose significantly more money per incident on average. Results also indicate that consumers from majority Black, Asian, and Hispanic communities are more likely report victimization, although victims from non-Hispanic White communities report higher average loses. Consumer education on government imposter scams, specifically targeting young people and minorities, as well as greater controls on retail gift card sales, might help limit consumer losses.

Suggested Citation

  • Marguerite DeLiema & Paul Witt, 2021. "Mixed Methods Analysis of Consumer Fraud Reports of the Social Security Administration Impostor Scam," Working Papers wp434, University of Michigan, Michigan Retirement Research Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:mrr:papers:wp434
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mrdrc.isr.umich.edu/publications/papers/pdf/wp434.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rod Duclos & Echo Wen Wan & Yuwei Jiang, 2013. "Show Me the Honey! Effects of Social Exclusion on Financial Risk-Taking," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 40(1), pages 122-135.
    2. D. Raval, 2021. "Who is Victimized by Fraud? Evidence from Consumer Protection Cases," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 43-72, March.
    3. Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter, 1994. "The Persuasion Knowledge Model: How People Cope with Persuasion Attempts," Journal of Consumer Research, Journal of Consumer Research Inc., vol. 21(1), pages 1-31, June.
    4. Erin York Cornwell & Linda J. Waite, 2009. "Measuring Social Isolation Among Older Adults Using Multiple Indicators From the NSHAP Study," The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, The Gerontological Society of America, vol. 64(suppl_1), pages 38-46.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lee, Alice J. & Ames, Daniel R., 2017. "“I can’t pay more” versus “It’s not worth more”: Divergent effects of constraint and disparagement rationales in negotiations," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 16-28.
    2. Suwelack, Thomas & Hogreve, Jens & Hoyer, Wayne D., 2011. "Understanding Money-Back Guarantees: Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Outcomes," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 87(4), pages 462-478.
    3. Jong Yoon Lee & Jae Hee Park & Jong Woo Jun, 2019. "Brand Webtoon as Sustainable Advertising in Korean Consumers: A Focus on Hierarchical Relationships," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(5), pages 1-10, March.
    4. Skarmeas, Dionysis & Leonidou, Constantinos N., 2013. "When consumers doubt, Watch out! The role of CSR skepticism," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 66(10), pages 1831-1838.
    5. Mark Groza & Mya Pronschinske & Matthew Walker, 2011. "Perceived Organizational Motives and Consumer Responses to Proactive and Reactive CSR," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 102(4), pages 639-652, September.
    6. Aaker, Jennifer L. & Brumbaugh, Anne M. & Grier, Sonya A., 2000. "Non-target Markets and Viewer Distinctiveness: The Impact of Target Marketing on Advertising Attitudes," Research Papers 1578, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    7. Simonson, Itamar & Drolet, Aimee L., 2003. "Anchoring Effects on Consumers' Willingness-to-Pay and Willingness-to-Accept," Research Papers 1787, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
    8. Román, Sergio & Riquelme, Isabel P. & Iacobucci, Dawn, 2023. "Fake or credible? Antecedents and consequences of perceived credibility in exaggerated online reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    9. Rosbergen, Edward & Wedel, Michel & Pieters, Rik, 1997. "Analyzing visual attention tot repeated print advertising using scanpath theory," Research Report 97B32, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    10. Ryan W. Buell & Michael I. Norton, 2011. "The Labor Illusion: How Operational Transparency Increases Perceived Value," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 57(9), pages 1564-1579, February.
    11. Caldieraro, Fabio & Cunha, Marcus, 2022. "Consumers’ response to weak unique selling propositions: Implications for optimal product recommendation strategy," International Journal of Research in Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 724-744.
    12. Fennell, Patrick B. & Coleman, Joshua T. & Kuo, Andrew, 2020. "The moderating role of donation quantifiers on price fairness judgments," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 464-473.
    13. Joëlle Vanhamme & Valérie Swaen & Guido Berens & Catherine Janssen, 2015. "Playing with fire: aggravating and buffering effects of ex ante CSR communication campaigns for companies facing allegations of social irresponsibility," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 26(4), pages 565-578, December.
    14. María del Mar García‐De los Salmones & Andrea Perez, 2018. "Effectiveness of CSR Advertising: The Role of Reputation, Consumer Attributions, and Emotions," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 194-208, March.
    15. Hyeong Kim & Thomas Kramer, 2006. "“Pay 80%” versus “get 20% off”: The effect of novel discount presentation on consumers’ deal perceptions," Marketing Letters, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 311-321, December.
    16. Caroline L. Noblet & Laura A. Lindenfeld & Mark W. Anderson, 2013. "Environmental Worldviews: A Point of Common Contact, or Barrier?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 5(11), pages 1-18, November.
    17. Zhuang, Mengzhou & Cui, Geng & Peng, Ling, 2018. "Manufactured opinions: The effect of manipulating online product reviews," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 24-35.
    18. Justina Sidlauskiene & Yannick Joye & Vilte Auruskeviciene, 2023. "AI-based chatbots in conversational commerce and their effects on product and price perceptions," Electronic Markets, Springer;IIM University of St. Gallen, vol. 33(1), pages 1-21, December.
    19. Thomas, Sunil & Kohli, Chiranjeev S., 2011. "Can brand image move upwards after Sideways? A strategic approach to brand placements," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 54(1), pages 41-49.
    20. Chakravarty, Anindita & Liu, Yong & Mazumdar, Tridib, 2010. "The Differential Effects of Online Word-of-Mouth and Critics' Reviews on Pre-release Movie Evaluation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 185-197.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mrr:papers:wp434. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MRRC Administrator (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/isumius.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.