Skip to main content

“You’re not alone”: the use of peer support groups for fraud victims

Cassandra Cross (2019) — Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/10911359.2019.1590279 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Fraud Victim Support, Peer Support Groups, Qualitative Case Study, Romance Scams, Stigma, Victim Recovery, Western Australia
What do these research terms mean?
Preprint
A manuscript shared before formal peer review and publication. Check whether a later published version is available.
Dataset
A collection of data or examples for others to inspect or reuse. It can appear in Library search and topic mapping, but RSRC does not use dataset records as evidence in Research Insights.
Dissertation or thesis
Research submitted for an academic degree. This describes its format, not its reliability.
Journal article
An article published in a journal. This label alone does not establish peer review, study quality, or how well the findings apply elsewhere.
Qualitative research
Examines experiences, meanings, or processes, often through interviews or observations. It can explain how something happens without estimating how common it is.
Quantitative research
Uses numerical measurements to describe patterns or test relationships. A relationship between two measurements does not by itself show that one causes the other.
Systematic review
Uses a planned, documented method to find and assess research addressing a question. Its conclusions still depend on the included studies and what the search covered.
Meta-analysis
Statistically combines results from multiple studies. Combining studies does not remove weaknesses in their design or make unlike populations interchangeable.
Not classified
This record has no recognized label in this filter. It does not mean the publication used no method, or that no research exists.

Definitions draw on DataCite resource types; Cochrane review methods; NLM: association and causation. RSRC’s dataset and classification rules are explained in our methodology.

Citation tools
Download RIS Download BibTeX 


              
              

            

          

        


      

      

    

        
Transparency

        
Evidence and review status

        
This page contains AI-generated content. No human content review or subject-matter-expert review is recorded.

    


    

                    

                
Source basis

                

                    Downloaded PDF
                

            

                    

                
Source updates

                

                    No notice found at last check
                

            

                    

                
AI-generated page content

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Automated checks

                

                    Passed
                

            

                    

                
Administrative approval

                

                    Yes
                

            

                    

                
Human content review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

                    

                
Subject-matter-expert review

                

                    Not recorded
                

            

            


    

        
            How this was prepared
        
        

                            

                    
Source basis

                    

                    
RSRC downloaded and privately stored a copy of the paper for internal analysis. The PDF is not offered to viewers from this page.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    PDF added to RSRC:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Source updates

                    

                    
No incoming update notice was found in the dated Crossref response. Coverage is incomplete, particularly for corrections and expressions of concern; this is not a guarantee that the source is valid or unchanged.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Last source-status attempt:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
AI-generated page content

                    

                    
AI-generated research notes displayed on this page: Synopsis, Identified gaps, Methods, Limitations, Future work. The paper itself is not described as AI-generated.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Document analysis recorded:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Page record updated:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Automated checks

                    

                    
The current, source-bound synopsis passed the recorded versioned publication checks.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Checks completed:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                            

                            
                                View passed checks (3)
                            
                            
    
                                                                    
  • Length, completeness, repetition, refusal, boilerplate, and active-markup screening
    • 
                                                                    
  • Numerical claims checked against the available source text
    • 
                                                                    
  • English-source lexical grounding check
    • 
                                                            

                        

                                        

                

                            

                    
Administrative approval

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Human content review

                    

                    
No human review is recorded for the AI-generated content displayed on this page.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
Subject-matter-expert review

                    

                    
RSRC has not recorded review of this content by a subject-matter or methods expert.


                    
                                        

                

                    

    


    

        Review-state definitions

        Found a possible error?
        Request a correction.
    



    



              

        
                  

            
Synopsis

            
This article examines the severe consequences of fraud victimization and the limited support services available to those affected. Victims not only suffer financial loss but also face broader harms, including declines in physical and emotional health, relationship breakdown, unemployment, homelessness, and in some cases, suicidal thoughts or actions. Despite the global prevalence of fraud, recovery-focused services remain scarce. The study uses a case study of an Australian jurisdiction where a face-to-face peer support group was established specifically for fraud victims. Interviews were conducted with participants both prior to the group’s launch and one year after its operation. This longitudinal approach allowed the researchers to capture the evolving experiences of victims and to assess the effectiveness of peer-based intervention. Findings highlight significant benefits of the support model. Participants reported reduced feelings of isolation, increased validation of their experiences, and the development of coping strategies through shared understanding with others who had endured similar victimization. The group offered a sense of community and belonging, helping to address the stigma and shame often attached to fraud victimization. However, the study also identified challenges. These included the difficulty of sustaining long-term engagement, varying needs and expectations among participants, and practical issues such as resource limitations and accessibility. Some victims required more intensive or specialized support beyond what peer models could provide. The article concludes that fraud victim support remains underdeveloped, and peer support groups offer a promising but partial solution. While exploratory, the findings underscore the urgent need for greater investment in victim services and the potential role of structured peer support as part of a broader system of recovery assistance.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Dedicated support for fraud victims is underdeveloped: support services are limited globally and face-to-face peer support groups for fraud victims were described as being in their infancy. Evidence is limited on whether peer support benefits victims of non-romance fraud, because all study participants had experienced romance fraud. The study also identifies unresolved implementation questions around sustaining attendance, safe facilitation, expectation management, accessibility, and support for men.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Exploratory qualitative case study of a Western Australian face-to-face peer support group for fraud victims. The author conducted semi-structured interviews before group commencement (July 2014; n=6) and more than 12 months after commencement (February 2016; n=7, including four original and three newer members). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, uploaded to NVivo 11, and thematically coded against the interview schedule and peer-support literature. Nine participants in total, predominantly aged 50+, were all romance-fraud victims.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The small sample (n=9) is not generalizable and did not include every group member, so it may not represent the group. Participation was self-selected, likely excluding victims unwilling to disclose due to shame, embarrassment, or stigma. The sample was predominantly women, limiting insight into men’s support needs. All participants experienced romance fraud, preventing conclusions about peer support for other fraud types. Attrition also meant only four of six original interviewees completed the second interview.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Establish and study additional peer support groups for fraud victims, including victims of fraud types other than romance fraud. Research should examine how to improve dedicated support mechanisms and address barriers to participation, particularly stigma, low attendance, logistical access, and men’s engagement. Any online support option requires careful assessment because participants may distrust technology and forums could attract repeat-targeting offenders.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

            See how this publication connects to RSRC's living evidence syntheses through current citations and research-topic mapping.