Exploring Fear of Crime for Those Targeted by Romance Fraud
Cross, C. ; Lee, M. (2023) — The Link between Specific Forms of Online and Offline Victimization
Type:
Book Chapter
Country:
Australia
Synopsis (AI-Generated)
This study analyzes a set of 3,259 romance fraud reports submitted by individuals to Scamwatch, the Australian online platform for reporting fraud, for the period spanning July 2018 through July 2019 inclusive. The aim is to foreground fear of crime as it is described by the complainants themselves rather than focusing solely on the incidence or financial impact of the offenses. By centering on the lived experiences of people targeted by romance scams, the work seeks to illuminate the emotional and psychological dimensions attendant to these harms, moving beyond a narrow accounting of tactics or losses to emphasize how fear weaves into victims’ narratives across different contexts. Drawing on established frameworks used to analyze fear of crime, the study pays particular attention to the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components of fear. It is positioned as an exploratory assessment that investigates how fear of crime manifests among those who are victims of romance fraud. The analysis considers how expressions and experiences of fear arise within complainants’ accounts, recognizing that the fear can be evident in ways that reflect a spectrum of responses. The approach also acknowledges that the anxieties surrounding romance fraud can appear in both online interactions and offline situations, underscoring the cross-environment nature of the harms involved. Building on these insights, the article presents a model designed to deepen understanding of how victims respond to romance fraud in varying ways. The proposed framework aims to capture the diversity of victim reactions and to highlight the often-hidden harms associated with victims’ anxieties. In doing so, the model emphasizes that the consequences of romance fraud extend beyond the immediate incident to influence experiences across different settings, illustrating how online and offline environments can both reflect and amplify the psychological and social effects of these offenses.
Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)
The article identifies little prior work on fear-of-crime dynamics specifically in romance fraud, including its relationship with established financial and non-financial harms. The prevalence of fear is unknown because complainants were not directly asked about it. Less is known about victims’ actions to reduce fear and the effectiveness of those actions.
Methods (AI-Generated)
Exploratory qualitative thematic analysis of de-identified Scamwatch romance-fraud reports supplied by Australia’s ACCC. Of 4,354 reports lodged from 1 July 2018 to 31 July 2019, 3,259 distinct shareable reports remained after duplicates were removed. NVivo was used to identify 104 free-text reports evidencing explicit or inferred fear of crime, then thematically analyze affective, behavioral, cognitive, and altruistic fear across online and offline contexts.
Limitations (AI-Generated)
Self-reported online reports cannot support generalization. Scamwatch provided no screening, interaction, or guidance, and mostly non-mandatory fields created missing data. Free-text accounts varied substantially in content and detail; absence of reported fear or protective action does not mean it was absent. The strict identification process and 104-case subset may understate prevalence, so reported numbers require caution and may not represent all dimensions of fear.
Future Work (AI-Generated)
Directly ask romance-fraud targets about fear of crime to estimate its prevalence more accurately. Examine what actions victims take to reduce fear and whether those actions succeed. Use this knowledge to identify ways to empower victims, restore safety and wellbeing, and support recovery.
AI-Generated Content Notice
The synopsis and research notes on this page were generated with AI from available publication information and, when available, the uploaded paper text. They may contain errors, omissions, or interpretation issues. Readers should follow the DOI or source link, review the original publication, and make their own judgment about the content.
Found a possible error? Request a correction.