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

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

DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2025.2481267
Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   cyberscams, fraud victimization, psychological harm, social support, scam stigma, vulnerability, romance scams, post-scam recovery, victim-survivors, stigma, psychological impacts, Australia, qualitative research, victim vulnerability, scammer manipulation

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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 (AI-Generated)

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.

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.