Researchers examine how scammers persuade their victims

Suspicious emails, unexpected phone calls, text messages promising easy money — most people think they’d recognize a scam when they see one.

But the most damaging scams rarely progress with a series of obvious, escalating red flags. They often start with a simple conversation, and then build into relationships. In long-term cons, such as investment and romance schemes, scammers will first prioritize establishing credibility, and then create a version of reality in which the victim believes they are making a logical decision.

“To them, this is not a scam,” said Aaron Hess, a rhetoric professor at the College of Integrative Sciences and Arts in the School of Applied Sciences and Arts and the interim director of the college’s School of Applied Professional Studies. “When you’re on the inside, this is just a friend that you’re talking to.”

Understanding how people enter and exit that reality is the focus of an international collaboration led by Hess and Jens E. Kjeldsen, a rhetoric and visual communication professor at the University of Bergen in Norway. By examining how scammers operate, the researchers hope to develop better ways to prevent scams, intervene while they’re happening and support victims in the aftermath.

 

Online scams have become a multibillion-dollar problem, with losses driven increasingly by schemes that rely on sustained interaction rather than an impulsive click or transaction. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s annual internet crimes report, cybercrime defrauded Americans of nearly $21 billion in 2025 alone — a 26% increase in losses from 2024.

What’s more, these crimes have grown increasingly sophisticated, with the FBI reporting that cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence-related schemes have become the costliest.

Yet many consumer campaigns still focus on prevention tactics like knowing how to identify a suspicious link or verify a requestor’s identity before handing over sensitive information — advice designed for a moment of decision. Hess and his collaborators are studying what happens before that moment: how scammers gradually persuade people to trust them.

“In the context of online scams, the central question is still about persuasion. And so the work that we’re doing is asking the questions, ‘How do people become persuaded by these fraudsters? What tricks do they use? What strategies do they have?’” Hess said. “The larger argument that we’re trying to make is that many people who are victims to these scams are enveloped within a world that’s built around them.”

Understanding scams certainly requires digging into old cybercrime cases. But additional perspectives — including from participants in scams that are happening right now — are necessary in order to paint a full picture.

Hess and his collaborators are combining diverse research methods to capture these experiences, which includes:

• Conducting surveys to better understand public experiences with scams
• Interviewing victims, law enforcement officers, financial institution leaders and experts from victim support organizations
• Analyzing transcripts and recordings of real conversations between scammers and victims
• Reviewing documented scam cases to identify recurring persuasive strategies
• Under institutional review board approval, entering active scams to observe how trust is established and maintained in real time

One analysis of a recorded investment scam illustrates that process. Researchers examined a 34-minute conversation in which a Danish woman initially resisted investing but gradually changed her mind, not because she was threatened or pressured, but because the scammer patiently addressed her concerns.

“They are not presenting themselves as dark, vicious people,” Kjeldsen said. “They’re friendly. They’re just here to help you.”

From a rhetorical perspective, Kjeldsen said scammers persuade much like any skilled communicator.

“They’re attacking the victims in three ways,” Kjeldsen said. “First of all, they build a very credible character. Secondly, they awake their emotions. And thirdly, they bring to the table good and convincing arguments.”

The findings from this research could reshape how organizations respond to scams. Rather than only reminding people not to click suspicious links, Hess and Kjeldsen envision interventions that recognize scams as persuasive long-term relationships:

• Before a scam, banks, police departments and public awareness campaigns could continue to teach people to recognize suspicious technology, but also provide the tools to identify key rhetorical tactics.
• During a scam, family members and support professionals might learn better ways to help victims question the reality they’re experiencing without pushing them further toward the scammer.
• Afterward, organizations could better support victims by reducing shame, rebuilding dignity and helping them reconnect with loved ones, all of which play a significant role in victim mental health and recovery.

According to Hess, it’s really no different than when a person watches a movie — they might suspend disbelief to immerse themselves in an action-packed story arc about superheroes saving a city from villains. And while most movie-goers know that, when the movie ends, so does the imaginary world around them, people caught in scams may not feel the same agency.

“The movie is still going for many people who are caught up in scams, and they don’t recognize that the theater lights can be turned back on, they don’t recognize that they can walk out,” Hess said. “That’s a challenging message for people to understand. But if they can see that process, I think they can intervene more effectively.”

Funding from the University of Bergen in Norway and ASU’s Humanities Institute has fueled the research project’s early stages. Now, Hess and Kjeldsen are focused on securing the additional funding needed to take the work further with their research team and network of partners across the U.S., U.K., Norway and Denmark.