Why do you always get cheated when you are so smart? Uncover the psychological secrets behind telecom fraud

In recent years, "telecom fraud" has been a hot topic. There are related lectures in schools, corresponding publicity in communities, and you can always learn about many cases by chatting with relatives and friends or browsing the Internet. I wonder if you have ever thought about what kind of people are most likely to be deceived? And what are the effective ways to avoid being deceived? Today, let's talk about this topic from a psychological perspective.

Public impression

What kind of people are most likely to be deceived? At first glance, the answer is very simple. Living in the information age, it is inevitable to receive harassing messages. Those scammers speak in non-standard Mandarin and tell stories full of loopholes, just like clowns in a farce. Those who can be deceived by them are probably those with low education, little experience, and particularly poor vigilance, right?

The National Anti-Fraud Center has summarized the scams. There are ten common categories of scams. Some are simple, while others are sophisticated and well-planned. For example, some scammers pretend to be staff from the public security bureau, procuratorate, or court. They can not only accurately tell the victim's personal information, but also produce realistic certificates and documents, making it difficult to guard against.

Assuming that personal ability is the key to being deceived, how do we evaluate ability? Education is a relatively objective indicator. From this, it seems that we can draw a conclusion: people with lower education are more likely to be deceived, and once deceived, they will lose more money. However, a study by Jiangsu Police College showed that the victims of telecommunications fraud are mostly of medium education level; as for education and the amount of money defrauded, there is no correlation.

More importantly, scammers often change their methods. A study by domestic scholars in a city in Hubei found that in the early years, the elderly were often victims of telecommunications fraud; in recent years, young people accounted for 66% of the total number of victims, followed by middle-aged people, about 30%.

Games in the lab

Could it be that the scammers have the ability to cheat anyone they want?

To answer this question, let's think about it another way: What do scammers want most? Of course, money. To get money, scammers must first make the victim pay attention to the fraudulent information; secondly, they must gain the victim's trust; and finally, they must urge the victim to transfer money. Among the three steps, the second step is the most critical.

"Trust" is a very difficult issue to explain. You don't need to look up history books, just think about common idioms, and you can find many contradictory examples. "The power of public opinion can melt gold", which refers to the power of public opinion, and "seeing is believing" emphasizes objective evidence. Now someone uses AI technology to fake videos, and what you see may not be true...

Is there any way to digitize the trust issue to facilitate research?

Yes, scientists have invented the "Trust Game". This game requires at least two volunteers, who have never met each other and cannot communicate in the game. For the sake of convenience, let's call them "Zhang San" and "Li Si". At the beginning of the game, Zhang San is given a sum of money; then he is told that he can give any amount to Li Si, and Li Si may return the favor or not. If he does, the specific amount is up to Li Si.

Through numbers, we can estimate Zhang San's trust in Li Si; further, we can use other equipment in the laboratory to check the volunteers' physiological state and find factors related to trust. In 1998, American scholar Paul Zak found that if Zhang San was given oxytocin before the game, his trust in Li Si would increase; and when his brain was checked again, something even more surprising appeared - trust in strangers activates the reward system.

The origin of trust

The role of oxytocin can be roughly divided into two categories: one is to assist organisms in completing certain physiological activities, such as childbirth and breastfeeding; the other is to regulate the intimacy between organisms. As for the reward center, it affects our desires. Whether we like sports, whether we like certain foods, how we spend our holidays, etc., are all closely related to it.

Oxytocin may be key to animal bonding behavior Image/Network

After understanding this, looking back at the results of the previous experiment, we can draw an interesting conclusion: our physiological system encourages trust. Scholars speculate that this may be the result of long-term evolution.

The so-called "evolution" is to adapt to the environment, and every creature has its own difficulties. In America, there is a kind of bat that feeds on the blood of animals. On the surface, vampire bats seem like powerful creatures in horror stories, but in fact, prey such as cattle and horses will never surrender, but will try every means to avoid and drive them away. Therefore, for vampire bats, every time they go out hunting is a gamble: they may return with a full load, or they may return empty-handed.

Vampire bats have a poor ability to endure hunger. Without fresh blood, they will quickly become weak and will starve to death if they fast for more than 3 days. It is common sense that if we walk into their habitat, we will definitely see many corpses of weak ones. However, in reality, this rarely happens - when a vampire bat returns with a full load, it will spit out some blood to give to its companions who failed in hunting.

Vampire bat picture/Internet

When scientists first discovered this phenomenon, they were very surprised. Who could have thought that such a terrifying creature could also be affectionate? Later, American scholar Robert Axelrod used computers to simulate the various survival strategies of vampire bats, including the law of the jungle, unilateral assistance, and mutual assistance. The results showed that mutual assistance was most conducive to the survival of the group.

The early life of humans was not much better than that of vampire bats. We also lived in groups and made our living mainly by hunting. A hunter might get a lot of meat by chance, but he couldn't finish it all if he ate it himself. If he saved it, he would have to watch the meat spoil. What if he gave the extra meat to others? Then, the next time, others might help him. From this perspective, helping each other is like putting meat in a bank. You may be a little tight on money for the time being, but you will get a steady stream of interest later.

The limits of evolution

However, this raises another question: Where there is trust, there is inevitably betrayal. Were all early humans gentlemen?

Of course not. In fact, even vampire bats can betray trust. To deal with this situation, vampire bats have developed a unique strategy: remember the appearance of their companions, who they have helped, and who has helped them; if they return the favor, I will continue to share, but if they are betrayed, they will decisively cut off all ties.

In game theory, this is called "tit-for-tat." First, show goodwill, then adjust your strategy according to the other party's behavior, and punish him when necessary. What makes humans smarter than animals is that in addition to personal likes and dislikes, we also have morality and law. To a certain extent, the two play the role of "arbitrators", rewarding good people, punishing bad people, and maintaining the trust of the entire society.

Picture/Internet

However, "tit for tat" has a clear purpose and is good at preventing future mistakes but difficult to punish past ones. Human life is far more complicated than that of vampire bats. Take us students for example. From getting up in the morning to lying down at night, we have to make a lot of decisions: what to eat, what clothes to wear, what to buy, which set of exercises to do, and for each question, what formula to use, are there any precautions... If you recall carefully, you will find that some of these decisions are laborious and some are more casual. The former, such as answering questions, requires careful reading of the questions, in-depth thinking of all aspects, and careful conclusion of the final conclusion; the latter, such as what beverage to buy when shopping in the supermarket, is much easier.

Our brain has two modes of persuading ourselves and making decisions. Social psychologists call them the central path and the peripheral path of persuasion. The central path is self-centered and emphasizes subjective initiative. It requires us to actively think about problems and conduct comprehensive analysis. The peripheral path is like a self-driving car, which automatically makes corresponding adjustments when encountering any situation.

After reading this, do you think of anything? Is the peripheral path mode a bit like a conditioned reflex? If we put ourselves in the role of a liar, which kind of thinking mode would we prefer to meet?

Scammer's trick

The answer is obvious: people in the peripheral path mode are more easily deceived. In fact, all kinds of fraud tricks revolve around this principle.

Because active thinking consumes more energy, except for a few people who enjoy thinking about problems, most people are in the peripheral path state most of the time. Therefore, scammers can cast a net on the entire population through clumsy scams. As long as the audience is large enough, there is no worry about not getting anything.

Even people who like to think about problems will enter the peripheral path mode under certain circumstances. In the "pig killing" scam, the scammers are often not in a hurry to defraud money, but first create a perfect "personality", figure out the victim's preferences, and make friends with the victim. Once people determine that someone is their friend, they rarely actively doubt him. Fraud that impersonates acquaintances uses this principle.

Some scams are more complex, using a combination of methods. A domestic study shows that about 40% of scammers disguise themselves as public security, procuratorial and judicial personnel. They first try to obtain the victim's personal information and produce relevant certificates and documents; then, they call the victim and intimidate him on the grounds of being involved in the case; then, they use the excuse of clearing the suspect to obtain key account numbers and passwords, or request remote operation permissions to directly operate the victim's mobile phone and transfer money.

We are educated to cooperate with public officials; the scammers' threats will make the victims panic and unable to think clearly; and the so-called "clearing the suspicion of crime" shows a glimmer of hope. Therefore, victims often do not suspect anything and try to grasp the last "lifeline" like puppets.

It is crucial to get out of the situation in time

At this point, we can conclude that people are deceived mainly because of the situation. Everyone may enter the peripheral path mode in a certain situation and become a victim of telecommunications fraud. To avoid being deceived, of course, you must be aware of the latest scams and be more vigilant. However, the most important thing is to get out of the situation in time. For example, before making a major decision, give yourself some time to think; for example, seek social support in time and get advice from relatives, friends, teachers or professionals.

The 12381 SMS warning system jointly launched by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the Ministry of Public Security sends reminders to suspected victims, which is a way to help people get out of victim situations. As of June 2023, this system has sent 1.07 billion text messages with an accuracy rate of over 60%. This alone has saved countless lives.

Understanding some knowledge related to trust and decision-making has other uses. The road to study is long and difficult, and it is inevitable to encounter setbacks and even failures. If you encounter such a situation, can you convince yourself to believe in the future?