Skepticism Is Not Verification: A Psychological Account of Independent Checking in Telephone Fraud

Quick takeaways

The core idea: Doubting a caller is not the same as verifying them. Skepticism is a feeling about credibility. Verification means getting evidence the caller doesn’t control.

• Three checks. Ask who is confirming the claim and whether they’re truly independent of the caller. Ask how you reached them, because a number or link the caller supplied isn’t independent. Ask what is being confirmed, because a real problem doesn’t mean the caller’s requested action is legitimate.

• Why checking is hard. Repeated confirmation from the same source can feel like evidence. Leaving the call can feel costly (lost savings, lost opportunity, a damaged relationship), and a stressed mind struggles to carry out a plan it hasn’t rehearsed. These are proposed explanations, not proven ones.

• End the call first. For any unexpected request involving money, security codes, or device access, say “I’ll check this independently” and hang up. Don’t share codes, install software, or complete a transfer while checking.

• Reconnect on your terms. Use your bank’s app, the number on your card or statement, or contact details you already hold. Ignore any number, link, or transfer the caller offers.

• Check the action, not just the story. Ask the real institution whether the problem exists and whether the specific transfer or disclosure is appropriate.

• Treat objections as warning signs. Claims that “the bank is compromised,” threats of arrest for hanging up, and demands for secrecy are all attempts to block outside checking.

• Watch payment methods. Gift-card codes, crypto to a specified wallet, urgent wires, and cash or gold handed to a courier warrant extra scrutiny in an unexpected encounter.

• Prepare in advance. Agree on a family code phrase (voices can now be cloned by AI), save trusted contact details, and rehearse a one-line exit.

• Relationship appeals. If no independent source can confirm an emergency, defer payment, and consider contacting the relevant service directly. A threat to life calls for emergency services.

• If you’ve already paid. Contact your bank or payment provider immediately through a trusted route, then report the scam (ReportFraud.ftc.gov or IC3.gov in the US). Be wary of anyone offering to recover your money for a fee.

• Caveat. This is a framework with testable ideas, not a proven intervention.

Abstract

People can doubt a suspicious request and still check it using evidence controlled by the requester. This conceptual perspective argues that skepticism, a judgment about credibility, must be distinguished from verification, a behavior that obtains and evaluates evidence. It proposes three checks: source authenticity and evidential independence, control of the route used to reach the source, and evaluation of the requested action as well as its justification. Source monitoring, credibility appraisal, persuasion knowledge, and goal enactment provide psychological explanations for failures at these points. Four propositions concern apparent corroboration, action-specific checking, the costs of leaving a pressured interaction, and translating warnings into independent contact. Telephone fraud is the lead case because live influence and callback opportunities make these processes observable. The article proposes behavioral tests that distinguish verification from confidence, delay, and refusal, and derives concise implications for prevention communication. The account offers a psychological research agenda rather than a validated intervention.

Keywords: telephone fraud; independent verification; source monitoring; persuasion knowledge; social influence; intention–behavior gap

1 Introduction: doubting a request without escaping its evidence

A caller warns that someone is stealing a person’s savings. Another offers an investment that could finally relieve financial worries. A third has become a familiar, reassuring presence and now needs emergency funds. The recipient may ask questions, challenge inconsistencies, or request proof. Yet the caller can supply the explanation, nominate the person who confirms it, and specify how that person is contacted. Skepticism has been expressed while the requester still controls the evidence.

The psychological problem is the transition from evaluating a persuasive account to obtaining information outside it. Skepticism is an attitude or judgment about credibility. Verification is a sequence of behaviors through which a person seeks and evaluates evidence. Neither guarantees the other: a doubtful person can accept counterfeit corroboration, while someone who feels little suspicion can follow a routine that leads to an independent check. This distinction directs attention to what recipients do, where their information comes from, and what their checking actually establishes.

This article proposes three checks. The source check concerns authenticity, competence to assess the claim, and evidential independence from the requester. The route check concerns control of the path used to reach that source. The action check concerns whether the proposed commitment, as well as the story supporting it, has been evaluated. These are procedural distinctions with psychological explanations, not three separable mental faculties. The contribution is to connect them to source evaluation, social influence, and goal enactment, and to formulate propositions that could be contradicted by behavioral evidence. Callback advice itself is established in official guidance (Federal Trade Commission [FTC], 2026a).

The stakes extend across contact methods. In March 2026, the FTC reported 3 million fraud reports for 2025 and $15.9 billion in reported losses, including $7.9 billion attributed to investment scams. Text messages were the most commonly reported contact method, while social media accounted for the largest aggregate reported losses (FTC, 2026b). These are reporting-system figures, not prevalence estimates. Telephone contact is the lead case for an analytical reason: live interpersonal pressure and the opportunity to end contact and reconnect make the transition to independent evidence especially concrete. The account may extend to other channels, but that transfer requires examination.

This is a conceptual perspective for researchers in applied cognitive, social, and aging psychology. Evidence was selected for its relevance to the proposed processes, including contrary findings, using a bounded PubMed search supplemented by targeted scholarly web searches and primary-source checking. The database searches returned 211 records and 207 unique records. No publication-date restriction was applied. Appendix A specifies the queries, selection criteria, and coverage limits. This is selective evidence mapping, not a systematic review; it does not establish the completeness of the psychological or criminological literature.

2 A psychological account of the three checks

The account treats verification as evidence acquisition followed by evaluation of a consequential decision. An apparent check can fail because a source is impersonated or merely repeats the requester’s information, because the contact route is controlled by the requester, or because the recipient checks a true background fact without evaluating the proposed action. The checks can occur together or in a different order. They describe the basis for regarding a request as verified; they are not prerequisites for declining it.

Source evaluation: who knows, and how? The source check separates authentication from evidential independence. Authentication concerns identity. Independence concerns the origin and control of the evidence for the claim being examined. A genuine acquaintance who repeats a caller’s story has been authenticated but supplies no independent corroboration. Competence is also claim-specific: bank staff may examine an account alert but cannot substantiate an unrelated medical emergency. Independence here is relative to the disputed claim, not a demand that institutions have no relationships or shared records.

Source-monitoring theory concerns judgments about the origins of memories, knowledge, and beliefs (Johnson et al., 1993). Its application here is that recipients must track whether purported confirmation contains information from a separate evidential origin or recycles the initial account. Epistemic vigilance offers a broader theoretical vocabulary for evaluating communicators and communicated content (Sperber et al., 2010). Neither theory validates a scam-prevention protocol. Both help specify the error: perceived agreement can be mistaken for independently grounded support.

Experiments provide reasons to examine this error. Weaver et al. (2007) found that repetition by one speaker could increase perceived opinion prevalence even when participants knew the repetitions came from that speaker. Chaiken and Maheswaran (1994) found that a source-credibility cue could influence interpretation of ambiguous arguments even under conditions of high task importance. In a fraud encounter, familiarity, official presentation, and apparent agreement might therefore shape the meaning assigned to evidence rather than simply replace thoughtful processing. This application is a hypothesis about fraud, not a result of either experiment.

Proposition 1: Repeated requester-controlled corroboration can increase confidence in a request without improving the evidential basis for action. The proposed mechanism is mistaken attribution of evidential support, which can arise through familiarity or apparent source credibility. A test should vary evidential provenance separately from repetition and the number of apparent speakers, holding factual content constant. Confidence, recognition of shared provenance, and consequential choices should be measured separately. If provenance cues do not affect judgments or choices once repetition and credibility are controlled, the proposed provenance mechanism would receive little support.

A constraint is important. O’Donnell et al. (2023) manipulated repetition and source variability independently in eyewitness-misinformation experiments. Repetition increased suggestibility, while source variability did not; their meta-analyses supported the same distinction. Multiple apparent sources therefore cannot simply be assumed to exert an additional consensus effect. Proposition 1 predicts a possible confidence–evidence mismatch, while leaving repetition and provenance confusion as competing explanations to be separated experimentally.

Route selection: leaving a controlled information environment. Naming the right institution does not establish that it has been reached. A caller-supplied number, transfer, or link can redirect a check to an accomplice or counterfeit service. The route check helps secure source authenticity, so source and route overlap. Their distinction concerns behavior: source evaluation asks whose evidence is obtained; route selection asks how the recipient reached it. A recipient who wants reassurance may select the easiest offered route and remain within the initial interaction’s information environment.

Telephone discourse makes this problem concrete. Carter’s (2023) analysis shows how requests for confirmation can recruit cooperation and make compliance appear part of routine administrative business. Asking another question need not interrupt that sequence. Likewise, an instruction to keep contact secret or a claim that bank staff are compromised attempts to disqualify alternative evidence. Threats of arrest for hanging up are documented in official guidance (FTC, 2025). The proposed psychological mechanism is that leaving the interaction acquires a perceived cost, such as danger, lost opportunity, or disloyalty.

Action evaluation: what decision has the evidence justified? A real security incident does not establish that a proposed transfer is appropriate. Genuine registration does not establish every investment claim. The action check evaluates authorization, recipient, and requested commitment rather than treating confirmation of one background fact as approval of the whole request. Psychologically, the proposed error is premature goal completion: obtaining a reassuring answer is treated as finishing the checking task, even though the consequential decision remains unsupported.

Proposition 2: When a background story is plausible or partly true but the requested commitment is unauthorized, an explicit action check will reduce inappropriate compliance beyond a story check alone. This is a prediction, not an established finding. A test should equate time, warning strength, and contact with an authentic source, varying whether the source addresses the background event or the proposed action. It should include legitimate requests. An indiscriminate reduction in all compliance would indicate generalized avoidance rather than improved decision discrimination.

Initiating verification: from protective intention to behavior. Intending to be careful does not specify when to leave a conversation or which route to use. Implementation intentions link an anticipated cue to a response; Gollwitzer and Sheeran’s (2006) meta-analysis supports their effects on goal attainment across domains. Applying that evidence to independent contact is an extrapolation. A rehearsed response might facilitate leaving the interaction, but it can also automate an inadequate check if it merely instructs the person to call a supplied number.

Proposition 3: Arousal that heightens perceived urgency and relational commitment that increases the perceived cost of checking will each reduce initiation of an available independent route. These are distinct hypothesized pathways, not one common emotional mechanism. They should be tested separately, measuring urgency and anticipated relational cost alongside actual route use. Arousal that instead heightens vigilance, or commitment that motivates more careful checking, would contradict the corresponding directional prediction. Section 3 examines the evidence and boundaries.

Proposition 4: Rehearsing a cue-linked independent-contact response will increase use of an available independent route more than a warning containing the same information without rehearsal. The predicted outcome is route-taking, not simply warning recall or increased suspicion. A comparison should match exposure and practice time, include a rehearsal control unrelated to verification, and vary cognitive load. Whether load strengthens or eliminates the rehearsal benefit is an open moderator question: retrieval support may help, but severe overload may prevent enactment altogether.

The action check specifies the content of the decision; implementation intentions concern whether the person initiates the intended checking behavior. These explanatory levels should remain distinct. A person can execute a plan efficiently yet evaluate the wrong thing, or understand exactly what needs checking but fail to leave the call. The account therefore predicts identifiable incomplete checks rather than a single continuum from gullibility to caution.

3 Obstacles to obtaining and using independent evidence

Arousal and urgency. Kircanski et al. (2018) induced positive or negative emotional arousal before misleading advertisements. Among participants exhibiting the intended emotional response, both high-arousal conditions increased purchase intentions relative to low arousal. The outcome was intention in an advertisement task, not payment during an interactive scam. Extending this finding to fear of losing savings or hope of financial relief during a live call is a conceptual inference. It supports examining emotional intensity across valences, not treating ordinary hope or attachment as equivalent to experimentally induced arousal.

In the bank example, compliance can be presented as the route from fear to relief. In the investment example, checking may appear to threaten an opportunity. Proposition 3 locates the predicted effect in perceived urgency and the cost of delay. This is more specific than predicting that emotional people are generally less rational. A study could find greater arousal but no reduction in independent contact, or more checking because the stakes feel important. Feeling reassured should also be distinguished from acquiring better evidence: relief can follow a persuasive explanation while the evidential situation remains unchanged.

Attachment and social obligation. Whitty’s (2013) interview-based stage model describes grooming before financial demands in online romance fraud. Carter’s (2021) discourse analysis examines emotionally charged accounts and secrecy in a romance fraud. These studies support attention to how a request becomes embedded in a relationship; they do not establish that attachment causes failure to use an independent route. The proposed extension is that checking can threaten a valued identity as a loyal partner, helpful relative, or cooperative customer. This gives relational cost a different psychological role from arousal.

Loneliness does not establish a simple social remedy. Harada and Tsuchiya (2025) compared 65 grandparent-scam victims with 71 detectors and reported associations involving loneliness, fewer local-event companions, and scam-knowledge gaps. Liao et al. (2024) experimentally induced loneliness and found greater susceptibility to misleading advertisements among middle-aged and older adults, using credibility and purchase-intention outcomes. DeLiema et al. (2025), studying known older fraud victims, linked loneliness and financial fragility to more frequent self-reported victimization but found no expected protection from frequent social engagement or living with others, and little support for seeking financial input. Consultation should consequently be studied as assistance in obtaining evidence, rather than assumed protective because social contact occurred.

Cognitive capacity and accessible persuasion knowledge. Campbell and Kirmani (2000) found that the accessibility of ulterior persuasion motives and cognitive capacity affected evaluations of a salesperson. When those motives were less accessible, cognitively busy targets were less likely to use persuasion knowledge. This consumer-persuasion evidence helps distinguish possessing relevant knowledge from deploying it during an interaction. In a scam, maintaining the conversation, remembering explanations, locating another contact, and evaluating instructions may compete for resources. The proposed link to route-taking remains to be tested.

Capacity also constrains the feasibility of any checking routine. Boyle et al. (2019) found that lower scam awareness among 935 older adults initially free of dementia was associated with later Alzheimer dementia and mild cognitive impairment. This prospective association does not justify diagnosing impairment from victimization. Nor does older age establish incapacity. Research should distinguish memory for a rule, ability to disengage, ability to locate an authentic service, and ability to evaluate its response. Support could improve one without improving the others.

Warnings and enactment. Scheibe et al. (2014) found that forewarning previously victimized consumers reduced unequivocal acceptance of a mock telephone solicitation, although refusal and persistence patterns differed across conditions. This provides telephone-specific evidence for preparation, not a test of independent-route use. Daiku et al. (2020), in an advertisement experiment with 162 participants, found that forewarning increased perceived manipulative intent only under central-processing conditions, with recollection mediating the processing effect. Together these studies motivate testing what a warning enables people to do under the conditions of the encounter. They do not establish that rehearsal outperforms warning alone, as Proposition 4 predicts.

Measurement must preserve the skepticism–verification distinction. In deceptive government-impersonation outreach to 644 aging-cohort participants, Yu et al. (2023) reported that 12 of 17 people who called the supplied number met their “conversion” criterion. The sample averaged 85.6 years and was predominantly White, female, and highly educated. Conversion included engaging without skepticism, confirming account or identity details, or supplying the last four Social Security digits. The outcome is partly definitional: absence of expressed skepticism could count as conversion without financial loss. The result cannot establish a skepticism–behavior dissociation because skepticism helped define the outcome. Its value here is methodological: future studies should measure doubt, independently sourced contact, disclosure, and loss-related decisions separately.

4 Applications for prevention communication

The three checks suggest a change in the target of prevention messages: make the acquisition and use of evidence observable. Table 1 presents constructed examples, not validated instructions or estimates of tactic frequency. A recipient who reaches an authentic institution through an independent route can still ask a question that leaves the proposed action unevaluated.

Table 1. Applying source, route, and action checks to illustrative encounters

For prevention designers, “Call your bank to check” is incomplete because it leaves the route and the object of checking unspecified. A more explicit model is: “End the call. Contact your bank through the app you already use or the number on your card or statement. Ask whether the reported problem is real and whether the requested transfer is appropriate. Do not use the caller’s number or transfer.” A 20-word model is: “End the call. Use independently obtained contact details. Check who is asking and what action is requested before you act.” Both are proposed copy for testing, not established protective interventions.

The psychological target is a feasible response to a consequential request, not elimination of fear or universal distrust. A cue-linked plan can specify leaving the interaction, locating an established route, and checking the proposed commitment. Accessible institutional contact and help from a competent supporter may be needed. Support should preserve the person’s participation and wishes while addressing the specific task they cannot complete. A companion who repeats requester-supplied documents supplies a different kind of input from a fraud team checking an account.

An unresolved check is a meaningful boundary. In relationship appeals, no accessible independent source may substantiate an emergency. The design recommendation here is to defer payment to the requester while investigating alternatives; absence of corroboration does not prove fraud. Deferral can delay genuine help. Where feasible, independently contacting a relevant provider, verifying the need and payment details, and arranging assistance directly offers an alternative to evaluate. Immediate threats to life call for independently contacted emergency services. The normative choice should be evaluated against both prevented losses and delayed legitimate assistance.

Context-specific applications, including voice impersonation, payment warnings, and recovery, are condensed in Appendix B. These examples extend the account without making practical guidance its main contribution. Institutions also determine whether verification is possible: accessible authentication, transaction controls, and prompt recovery services can reduce dependence on a recipient’s memory and resistance to pressure. The Scam Prevention Research Committee (2024) emphasizes both gaps in messaging evidence and the importance of measures beyond communication.

5 Limits and a research agenda

The account proposes explanations and discriminating tests; it does not establish that completing three checks reduces losses. Much of the process evidence comes from persuasion, advertisements, opinion estimation, or eyewitness memory, while the direct telephone literature measures different outcomes. Source, route, and action have not been validated as distinct latent constructs, nor is that required for their procedural distinction. The psychological claims concern identifiable errors and transitions that may occur across these checks.

The search remains selective. PubMed provides useful aging and cognitive research but inadequate coverage of psychology, communication, and criminology as a whole. Targeted web searches and primary-paper retrieval broadened the conceptual base without replacing searches of PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, or a dedicated criminology index. There was no preregistration, independent duplicate screening, or formal risk-of-bias assessment. The messages have not undergone a human readability pilot. Broader literature coverage and empirical evaluation remain necessary.

Tests should begin with the proposed distinctions. Record baseline suspicion, information provenance, route choice, the question asked, and the resulting action. Avoid defining success as refusal or failure as an absence of expressed skepticism. Include genuine requests to measure disruption and inappropriate rejection. Keep time to reconsider, information content, repetition, and apparent authority comparable where the proposition requires it. Independently manipulate the proposed cause before treating a measured mediator as causal evidence. Simulated disclosures and transfers can provide behavioral outcomes without real financial loss, with consent and debriefing appropriate to the design.

Alternative explanations deserve direct comparison. An apparent route benefit may reflect extra time rather than independence; an action-check benefit may reflect a stronger warning rather than better evaluation; a rehearsal benefit may reflect exposure or practice. Relational commitment could encourage verification, and arousal could intensify vigilance. Findings of these kinds should revise the account rather than be absorbed as unspecified boundary conditions. Effects should also be examined across cognitive abilities, languages, institutional access, and scam types, without treating one older cohort as representative of all recipients.

Verification has substantive limits. An authentic source can be mistaken, an account can be compromised, and exploitation can involve a genuine acquaintance. Evidence from several genuinely independent sources can still be wrong. Conversely, a recipient may appropriately decline an unsolicited request without investigating it. The three checks specify grounds for evaluating a commitment; they neither certify safety nor impose a duty to engage. Evaluation should weigh financial protection alongside anxiety, service disruption, helper burden, and delayed genuine assistance.

6 Conclusion

Skepticism concerns whether a request seems credible; verification concerns how evidence is obtained and used. A recipient can challenge a caller yet remain within the caller’s account, or follow a checking routine without feeling especially suspicious. Distinguishing source, route, and action makes that difference assessable. The psychological contribution is a set of propositions about apparent corroboration, premature completion of checking, the perceived costs of leaving an interaction, and enactment of a protective intention. Their value will depend on whether they explain behavior beyond repetition, delay, generalized avoidance, and warning exposure. The central question is who controls the evidence on which the consequential action rests.

References

Boyle, P. A., Yu, L., Schneider, J. A., Wilson, R. S., & Bennett, D. A. (2019). Scam awareness related to incident Alzheimer dementia and mild cognitive impairment: A prospective cohort study. Annals of Internal Medicine, 170(10), 702–709. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-2711

Campbell, M. C., & Kirmani, A. (2000). Consumers’ use of persuasion knowledge: The effects of accessibility and cognitive capacity on perceptions of an influence agent. Journal of Consumer Research, 27(1), 69–83. https://doi.org/10.1086/314309

Carter, E. (2021). Distort, extort, deceive and exploit: Exploring the inner workings of a romance fraud. The British Journal of Criminology, 61(2), 283–302. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azaa072

Carter, E. (2023). Confirm not command: Examining fraudsters’ use of language to compel victim compliance in their own exploitation. The British Journal of Criminology, 63(6), 1405–1422. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azac098

Chaiken, S., & Maheswaran, D. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460–473. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.3.460

Commodity Futures Trading Commission. (n.d.). Social isolation and the risk of investment fraud. Retrieved October 29, 2026, from https://www.cftc.gov/LearnAndProtect/AdvisoriesAndArticles/SocialIsolationInvestor.htm

Daiku, Y., Kugihara, N., Teraguchi, T., & Watamura, E. (2020). Effective forewarning requires central route processing: Theoretical improvements on the counterargumentation hypothesis and practical implications for scam prevention. PLOS ONE, 15(3), e0229833. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0229833

DeLiema, M., Gao, S., Brannock, D., & Langton, L. (2025). The effects of risky behaviors and social factors on the frequency of fraud victimization among known victims. Innovation in Aging, 9(2), igae111. https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igae111

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024a, December 3). Criminals use generative artificial intelligence to facilitate financial fraud. Internet Crime Complaint Center. https://www.ic3.gov/psa/2024/psa241203

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024b, January 29). Scammers use couriers to retrieve cash and precious metals from victims of tech support and government impersonation scams. Internet Crime Complaint Center. https://www.ic3.gov/PSA/2024/PSA240129

Federal Trade Commission. (2023, December). Refund and recovery scams. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/refund-and-recovery-scams

Federal Trade Commission. (2025, June). Scammers are impersonating local law enforcement. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2025/06/scammers-are-impersonating-local-law-enforcement

Federal Trade Commission. (2026a, January). How to handle unexpected calls that claim your money is at risk. https://consumer.ftc.gov/consumer-alerts/2026/01/how-handle-unexpected-calls-claim-your-money-risk

Federal Trade Commission. (2026b, March 25). The rising scam economy: Modernizing federal approaches to protect Americans from foreign fraudsters [Prepared statement before the Joint Economic Committee]. https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/ftc_gov/pdf/ftc-testimony-jec-hearing-on-the-rising-scam-economy.pdf

Federal Trade Commission. (2026c, June). What to do if you were scammed. https://consumer.ftc.gov/articles/what-do-if-you-were-scammed

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Harada, C., & Tsuchiya, K. (2025). Social isolation, loneliness, and general trust as risk factors for special fraud: A comparative study of grandparent scam victims and detectors. The Japanese Journal of Criminal Psychology, 62(2), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.20754/jjcp.62.2_1

Johnson, M. K., Hashtroudi, S., & Lindsay, D. S. (1993). Source monitoring. Psychological Bulletin, 114(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.1.3

Kircanski, K., Notthoff, N., DeLiema, M., Samanez-Larkin, G. R., Shadel, D., Mottola, G., Carstensen, L. L., & Gotlib, I. H. (2018). Emotional arousal may increase susceptibility to fraud in older and younger adults. Psychology and Aging, 33(2), 325–337. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000228

Liao, S., Wang, X., & Zhang, X. (2024). Loneliness could lead to risk of fraud victimization for middle-aged and older adults. Journal of Elder Abuse & Neglect, 36(5), 508–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/08946566.2024.2404040

O’Donnell, R., Chan, J. C. K., Foster, J. L., & Garry, M. (2023). Experimental and meta-analytic evidence that source variability of misinformation does not increase eyewitness suggestibility independently of repetition of misinformation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1201674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1201674

Scam Prevention Research Committee. (2024, April). A review of scam prevention messaging research: Takeaways and recommendations. Scams Against Older Adults Advisory Group. https://consumer.ftc.gov/system/files/consumer_ftc_gov/pdf/A%20Review%20of%20Scam%20Prevention%20Messaging%20Research.pdf

Scheibe, S., Notthoff, N., Menkin, J., Ross, L., Shadel, D., Deevy, M., & Carstensen, L. L. (2014). Forewarning reduces fraud susceptibility in vulnerable consumers. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 36(3), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2014.903844

Sperber, D., Clément, F., Heintz, C., Mascaro, O., Mercier, H., Origgi, G., & Wilson, D. (2010). Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language, 25(4), 359–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x

Weaver, K., Garcia, S. M., Schwarz, N., & Miller, D. T. (2007). Inferring the popularity of an opinion from its familiarity: A repetitive voice can sound like a chorus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 821–833. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.5.821

Whitty, M. T. (2013). The scammers persuasive techniques model: Development of a stage model to explain the online dating romance scam. The British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 665–684. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azt009

Yu, L., Mottola, G., Kieffer, C. N., Mascio, R., Valdes, O., Bennett, D. A., & Boyle, P. A. (2023). Vulnerability of older adults to government impersonation scams. JAMA Network Open, 6(9), e2335319. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.35319

Appendix A Search scope and selection

The searches used Europe PMC’s MED source (PubMed records), title-and-abstract fields, and no publication-date or language filter at retrieval. They returned 27, 161, and 23 records, totaling 211 records and 207 unique source–identifier pairs after four duplicate occurrences were removed. Selection required an English title or abstract sufficient to assess relevance. Searches and supplementary source checks were completed on October 29, 2026.

Each query combined (TITLE_ABS:scam OR TITLE_ABS:scams OR (TITLE_ABS:fraud AND (TITLE_ABS:victim* OR TITLE_ABS:consumer*))) with one block below using AND, followed by AND SRC:MED.

Telephone block: (TITLE_ABS:telephone OR TITLE_ABS:phone OR TITLE_ABS:telemarketing OR TITLE_ABS:callback OR TITLE_ABS:vishing).

Checking and warnings block: (TITLE_ABS:verif* OR TITLE_ABS:authenticat* OR TITLE_ABS:warning* OR TITLE_ABS:forewarn*).

Social vulnerability block: (TITLE_ABS:loneliness OR TITLE_ABS:"social support" OR TITLE_ABS:consultation OR TITLE_ABS:"social engagement").

Titles were screened for human consumer-fraud research, with abstracts examined when potentially relevant. Qualitative, observational, and experimental studies were eligible if they addressed deceptive requests, warning or checking behavior, or relevant cognitive and social conditions. Food authentication, research-participant fraud, and purely technical detection were excluded. Accessible full texts were examined for claims used; abstract-only findings were kept at the level reported in their abstracts. Selection addressed the propositions and alternatives without formal quality scoring or effect synthesis.

Supplementary scholarly web queries included “source monitoring repeated information independent sources illusion corroboration experiment Weaver Garcia Schwarz Miller 2007”; “epistemic vigilance Sperber 2010 empirical source credibility persuasion knowledge Friestad Wright 1994”; “telephone fraud verification psychology systematic review source checking compliance”; “Johnson Hashtroudi Lindsay 1993 source monitoring framework psychological bulletin doi”; and “persuasion knowledge experiment Campbell Kirmani 2000 cognitive capacity.” Primary papers, publisher abstracts, and author repositories supplied the additional theory and experimental evidence. Findings constraining a multiple-source effect were retained alongside supportive analogies.

Criminology-oriented web queries combined site.ojp.gov/ncjrs-virtual-library/abstracts with “telemarketing fraud persuasion,” “telemarketing victim persuasion compliance,” and “fraud trust victims checking.” These retrieved indexed catalog abstracts, not a comprehensive NCJRS database result set. The direct NCJRS search endpoint did not yield a usable query result.

Search-interface access was attempted for APA PsycNet, Scopus, and Web of Science, but no searchable results were available through the research access used. Site-restricted web queries were not treated as database searches. No counts or coverage are claimed for those indexes. Supplementary results are not combined with the 207-record PubMed set as a single screened corpus. This is a reproducible description of selective evidence mapping, not an exhaustive review.

Appendix B Context-specific applications

Investment requests. Identity, product claims, and payment destination require separate attention. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission advises checking registration and disciplinary history through regulatory resources and warns about impersonation and decision pressure (Commodity Futures Trading Commission, n.d.). Authentic registration does not validate every investment or a caller claiming the registered person’s identity.

Payment and access requests. Unexpected demands for gift-card codes, cryptocurrency to a specified wallet, urgent wires, or cash and gold collected by a courier should receive explicit attention in prevention examples. The payment method alone does not determine legitimacy; the claimed purpose and proposed recipient also require checking. FBI guidance documents impersonators directing asset liquidation and courier collection for supposed protection (Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI], 2024b). Established callback guidance also warns against reliance on caller-supplied routes and fraudulent contact numbers in search advertisements (FTC, 2026a).

Voice impersonation. The FBI describes AI-generated audio impersonating relatives in crises and recommends family secret words or phrases and independent identity checks (FBI, 2024a). A privately arranged phrase can supplement contact through an existing route; it can be compromised and should not replace checking the emergency and requested response. These are applications of authentication and action evaluation, not evidence for a new psychological mechanism.

Recovery. The FTC advises immediate contact with the relevant bank or payment provider and asking whether a payment can be reversed or refunded (FTC, 2026c). Reporting and collecting a complete narrative should not delay that contact. Model guidance should also cover securing affected accounts, retaining records, and avoiding advance-fee recovery offers (FTC, 2023). ReportFraud.ftc.gov and IC3.gov are official reporting routes identified in FTC and FBI guidance (FTC, 2026c; FBI, 2024a). Recovery is uncertain, and an apparent rescuer’s request remains subject to independent checking.