Why name it, not just describe it
A fake bank fraud officer, an online "match", a fake tech support call: on paper, these are different scenarios. In practice, research shows they nearly always rely on the same handful of psychological levers — known individually under various academic names (authority, commitment, loss aversion...) but never gathered into one shared, accessible vocabulary. Recognizing one of these mechanisms in a message — even without knowing its name — is often enough to break the automatic emotional reaction and make room for verification. Naming the mechanism makes it visible.
The 8 mechanisms
Manufactured Urgency
Compressing time to short-circuit reflection.
Scarcity bias 👮Borrowed Authority
Posing as a trusted third party: a bank, police, a carrier.
Authority bias 📉Imminent Loss
Threatening something you already have.
Loss aversion 🎁Unexpected Gain
Promising something you weren't expecting.
Optimism bias 🚪The Small First Step
Asking for $2 before taking $10,000.
Commitment & consistency 🔇Isolation
"Don't tell anyone" — cutting off outside verification.
Removing the social safeguard 💬The Fabricated Bond
Creating or impersonating a relationship.
Attachment 🎯Credible Coincidence
Striking exactly when the context makes it plausible.
Base-rate neglectHow to read a scam with this grid
Most scams combine 2 to 3 of these mechanisms, rarely just one. A text saying "Your package is on hold for a customs fee" combines Credible Coincidence (you may genuinely be expecting a package), Manufactured Urgency (the link expires), and the Small First Step ($2, too small to trigger suspicion). Recognizing the combination — not just one isolated mechanism — is often the clearest signal.
Free reuse, with credit
These definitions are made freely available to press, researchers, and other prevention organizations under a Creative Commons BY (attribution) license. Please credit "Egidio — The Threat Lab" and link back to the source page.
Our method
Every mechanism cited in this Grammar is backed by an identified source — a published academic study, an established research body — never an intuition presented as fact. Where an intuitive connection seemed plausible but wasn't confirmed by the research, we say so explicitly rather than asserting it.