Empowered to Detect: How Vigilance and Financial Literacy Shield Us from the Rising Tide of Financial Frauds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the literature, the advancement of information and communication technology (ICT) has increased individual exposure to scams, turning fraud victimization into a significant concern. While prior research has primarily focused on socio-demographic predictors of fraud victimization, this study adopts a behavioral perspective that is grounded in the Signal Detection Theory (SDT) to investigate the likelihood determinants of individuals becoming fraud victims. Using survey data of 671 Indonesian respondents analyzed with the Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), we explored the roles of vigilance and financial literacy in moderating the relationship between fraud exposure and victimization. Our findings substantiate the notion that higher exposure to fraudulent activity significantly increases the likelihood of victimization. The results also show that vigilance negatively moderates the relationship between fraud exposure and fraud victimization, suggesting that individuals with higher vigilance are better at identifying scams, thereby decreasing their likelihood of becoming fraud victims. Furthermore, financial literacy is positively related to vigilance, indicating that financially literate individuals are more aware of potential scams. However, the predictive power of financial literacy on vigilance is relatively low. Hence, while literacy helps a person sharpen their indicators for detecting fraud, psychological, behavioral, and contextual factors may also affect their vigilance and decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".