Cybercrime Victim Profiling in Nigeria Using Machine Learning and Psychological Traits

Cybercrime victimization is on the rise, yet most existing studies focus on attackers rather than victims. This research examines the role of psychological traits in predicting cybercrime victimization in Nigeria using machine learning techniques. The research is motivated by the need to integrate human behavioral factors into cybersecurity, the study employs Random Forest, Decision Tree, Naïve Bayes, and Logistic Regression models to analyze thelinks between the Big Five personality traits and victim susceptibility. Data was collected through a SurveyMonkey questionnaire administered to residents of Abuja Municipal Area Council (AMAC) and a secondary dataset from an open-access Big Five personality repository. The models were trained and evaluated using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score metrics after data preprocessing. Random Forest achieved the highest accuracy at 97.2%. From our findings, individuals with high extraversion and low agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability, and openness are more vulnerable to cybercrime. These insights support the development of personality-informed cybersecurity awareness and prevention strategies.

Cybercrime Victimization, Machine Learning, Big Five Personality Traits, Random Forest, Psychological Profiling, Nigeria.

1. Akdemir, N., & Lawless, C. J. (2020). Exploring the human factor in cyber-enabled and cyber-dependent crime victimisation: A lifestyle routine activities approach. Internet Research, 30(6), 1665–1687. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Alam, M. K. (2018). Situational Victimization Among Adolescents: Exploring the Role of Morality, Self-Control and Lifestyle Risk. Journal of Computer Science, 5(2), 113-130 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Albladi, S. M., & Weir, G. R. S. (2017). Personality traits and cyber-attack victimisation: Multiple mediation analysis. 2017 Internet of Things Business Models, Users, and Networks, 6(3), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/CTTE.2017.8260932. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cheng, C., Chan, L., & Chau, C. (2020). Individual differences in susceptibility to cybercrime victimization and its psychological aftermath. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 106311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106311 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Felson, M., & Cohen, L. E. (1980). Human ecology and crime: A routine activity approach. Human Ecology, 8, 389–406. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Hadlington, L., & Murphy, K. (2018). Is Media Multitasking Good for Cybersecurity? Exploring the Relationship Between Media Multitasking and Everyday Cognitive Failures on Self-Reported Risky Cybersecurity Behaviors. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(3), 168–172. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0524. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Hawdon, J. (2021). Cybercrime: Victimization, perpetration, and techniques. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(6), 837–842. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Herrero, J., Torres, A., Vivas, P., Hidalgo, A., Rodríguez, F. J., & Urueña, A. (2021). Smartphone addiction and cybercrime victimization in the context of lifestyles routine activities and self-control theories: The user’s dual vulnerability model of cybercrime victimization. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(7), 3763. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Hirschi, T. (2004). Self-control and crime. Handbook of Self-Regulation, 537–552. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Jansen, J., &Leukfeldt, R. (2018). Coping with cybercrime victimization: An exploratory study into impact and change. Journal of Qualitative Criminal Justice and Criminology, 6(2), 205–228. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Kaakinen, M., Keipi, T., Räsänen, P., & Oksanen, A. (2018). Cybercrime victimization and subjective well-being: An examination of the buffering effect hypothesis among adolescents and young adults. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(2), 129–137. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Kaur, E. N. (2018). Introduction of cybercrime and its type. International Research Journal of Computer Science, 7(4), 71-89. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Kwak, H., & Kim, E.-K. (2022). The role of low self-control and risky lifestyles in criminal victimization: A study of adolescents in South Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(18), 11500. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Kranenbarg, M., Holt, T. J., & Van Gelder, J.-L. (2019). Offending and victimization in the digital age: Comparing correlates of cybercrime and traditional offending-only, victimization-only and the victimization-offending overlap. Deviant Behavior, 40(1), 40–55. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Levi, M., Doig, A., Gundur, R., Wall, D., & Williams, M. (2017). Cyberfraud and the implications for effective risk-based responses: themes from UK research. Crime, Law and Social Change, 67, 77–96. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Mikkola, M., Oksanen, A., Kaakinen, M., Miller, B. L., Savolainen, I., Sirola, A., Zych, I., & Paek, H.J. (2020). Situational and individual risk factors for cybercrime victimization in a cross-national context. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 0306624X20981041. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Ngo, F. T., & Paternoster, R. (2011). Cybercrime victimization: An examination of individual and situational level factors. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 5(1), 773. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Nodeland, B. (2020). The effects of self-control on the cyber victim-offender overlap. International Journal of Cybersecurity Intelligence & Cybercrime, 3(2), 4–24. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Ogbonnaya, M. (2020). Cybercrime in Nigeria demands public-private action-ISS Africa. 2, 6-16. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Omaojor, O. (2020). Population Density and Crime Rate in the Federal Capital Territory: The Role of the Nigerian Police Force [Thesis Dissertation, Nigerian Defence Academy]. Https://Www.Academia.Edu/64117225/Population_Density_And_Crime_Rate_In_The_Federal_Capital_Territory_The_Role_Of_The_Nigerian_Police_Force. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Payne, B., May, D. C., &Hadzhidimova, L. (2019). America’s most wanted criminals: Comparing cybercriminals and traditional criminals. Criminal Justice Studies, 32(1), 1–15. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Peker, A. (2017). An examination of the relationship between self-control and cyber victimization in adolescents. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 16(67). [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Peluchette, J. V., Karl, K., Wood, C., & Williams, J. (2015). Cyberbullying victimization: Do victims’ personality and risky social network behaviors contribute to the problem? Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 424–435. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Rauf, A. (2019). The Importance of Human Factor in Cyber security. Journal of Security, 9, 91-98. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Rokven, J. J., Weijters, G., Beerthuizen, M. G., & van der Laan, A. M. (2018). Juvenile Delinquency in the Virtual World: Similarities and Differences between Cyber-Enabled, Cyber-Dependent and Offline Delinquents in the Netherlands. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 4(7), 450-479. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Sheynov, V., Dyatchik, N. & Yermak, V. (2023). Relationships of College Students’ Smartphone Dependence with Victimization, Vulnerability to Cyberbullying and Manipulations. Pedagogical Sciences, 5(1), 80-86. Doi:10.52928/2070-1640-2023-39-1-80-86. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Smith, T. (2024). Integrated Model of Cybercrime Dynamics: A Comprehensive Model for Understanding Offending and Victimization in the Digital Realm. International Journal of Cybersecurity, Intelligence and Cybercrime, 7(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.52306/2578-3289.1163. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Weijer, S. G., &Leukfeldt, E. R. (2017). Big five personality traits of cybercrime victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 20(7), 407–412. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]