Skip to main content

“Falling into a Black Hole”: A Qualitative Exploration of the Lived Experiences of Cyberscam Victim-Survivors and Their Social Support Networks

Alyxandra Cazanis ; Jao-Yue Carminati ; Kimberly Chew ; Cassandra Cross ; Jennie Ponsford ; Kate Rachel Gould (2025) — Victims & Offenders

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2025.2481267 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Australia, Cyberscams, Fraud Victimization, Post Scam Recovery, Psychological Harm, Psychological Impacts, Qualitative Research, Romance Scams, Scam Stigma, Scammer Manipulation, Social Support, Stigma, Victim Survivors, Victim Vulnerability, Vulnerability
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 study investigates the lived experiences of cyberscam victim-survivors and their friends and family members, highlighting vulnerabilities, impacts, and support needs. Although cyberscams affect millions globally, existing services often fail to address their deep psychological and social consequences. The research involved 20 participants (12 scam victims and 8 friends/family) in Australia, recruited through support groups, social media, and referrals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted between 2020 and 2023 and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Participants reported experiences across 10 scam types, with romance scams and buying-and-selling frauds most common. Losses ranged from $20 to $1 million AUD, often unrecovered. Findings are summarized through six themes, conceptualized as a “scam journey” (Figure 1, p. 7). A “perfect scam storm” begins with the convergence of victim vulnerabilities (information overload, perceived invulnerability, high drive) and scammer manipulations (trust-building, threats, emotional engineering). These dynamics delayed detection, leading many to ignore red flags until hindsight. Victims then experienced a “double hit” of financial consequences and psychological harm, compounded by a “black hole of blame” from friends, family, banks, and authorities. Victims described severe distress, shame, and a breakdown of trust in both online interactions and close relationships. Romance scam victims suffered the heaviest losses (up to $1 million), often selling homes or assets, while family members endured secondary impacts. Shame was pervasive, tied to stereotypes of scam victims as gullible or unintelligent. This stigma reduced disclosure, hindered prevention, and reinforced isolation. Support experiences were mixed. Many victims and relatives felt dismissed by banks, police, or government agencies, with institutions often attributing responsibility to victims for “willingly transferring” money. While some accessed counseling or support groups, the quality varied; several victims found therapists unprepared to address the unique grief of romance scams. Others described peer support as retraumatizing without skilled facilitation. The study identifies “perceived invulnerability” as a consistent, modifiable risk factor across scam types. Awareness campaigns that normalize victimization—emphasizing that anyone can be scammed—may reduce stigma and improve prevention. The authors also call for targeted psychoeducational resources for families of scam victims, improved training for frontline services, and the development of evidence-based therapeutic approaches for romance scam survivors. In conclusion, cyberscam victimization is not limited to financial harm but produces enduring psychological, relational, and social consequences. Unmet support needs leave many feeling as though they are “falling into a black hole.” The findings underscore the urgent need to de-stigmatize scams, strengthen institutional responses, and provide holistic, trauma-informed care for both victims and their support networks.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Research has insufficiently examined the lived circumstances and interacting factors contributing to cyberscam vulnerability. Psychosocial harms and support needs remain under-recognized relative to financial loss and reporting. There are no known evidence-based post-scam treatment guidelines or interventions, and few studies include the perspectives of victims’ friends and family-members.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Australian qualitative study using purposive sampling of 20 adults: 12 self-identified cyberscam victim-survivors and 8 friends/family-members. Semi-structured interviews, conducted remotely or face-to-face between June 2020 and August 2023, explored scam experiences, vulnerability, impacts, and support. Transcripts and one field-note interview were analyzed inductively through Braun and Clarke’s six-phase reflexive thematic analysis within a constructivist lens; participant-summary member checking supported interpretation.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The small, purposively recruited Australian sample limits transferability across countries and populations. Participants were recruited partly through support groups, social media, research databases, and snowballing, which may favor people able or willing to discuss victimization. The sample was mostly male, middle-aged, educated, and employed among victim-survivors. Findings rely on retrospective self-report, sometimes years after scams, and six participants did not complete member checking.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Develop and evaluate evidence-based post-scam recovery interventions and treatment guidelines. Increase public awareness to reduce stigma and perceived invulnerability, and provide targeted training for scam-support and frontline services to improve psychosocial care. Future prevention and intervention planning should account for scam-type-specific vulnerability, impacts, and support needs.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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