Skip to main content

Romance Fraud: Its Repercussions on Victims’ Wellbeing

Gauci, Christine ; Vella, Mary Grace (2025) — Women & Criminal Justice

DOI: 10.1080/08974454.2025.2600304
Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Malta
Tags:   romance fraud, online dating scams, middle-aged women, victim wellbeing, trauma, Maltese victim services, thematic analysis, victims' rights, online romance scams, Malta, victim support, victim recovery

Synopsis (AI-Generated)

This Malta-based phenomenological study examined the repercussions of online romance fraud for middle-aged women. Six women aged 40-60, recruited through the Victim Support Agency, each completed three biographic-narrative interview sessions; six professionals completed semi-structured interviews. Contextualist thematic analysis compared victim and professional accounts across psychological, social, physical, financial, justice-system, recovery, and support experiences. The repeated interviews and multidisciplinary perspectives provide depth and can identify service gaps, including the absence of a Maltese organization dedicated solely to romance-fraud victims, but they do not measure prevalence or intervention effectiveness. The small purposive women-only sample, retrospective self-report, researcher interpretation, and one national setting sharply limit generalization.

Identified Gaps (AI-Generated)

The paper identifies scarce research on romance fraud, particularly its effects on victims’ wellbeing and quality of life. It further identifies a Maltese research gap: local studies on romance fraud and its impact on victims’ wellbeing are described as scarce or absent. Local statistics are also limited because romance fraud is combined with other fraud categories, impeding pattern analysis. The study additionally aims to address theoretical and policy lacunae and improve services for romance-fraud victims.

Methods (AI-Generated)

This Malta-based qualitative, phenomenological study explored holistic consequences of online romance fraud for middle-aged women. Six female victims aged 40–60 were purposively recruited through the Victim Support Agency; six relevant professionals were recruited through snowball sampling. Victims completed audio-recorded SQUIN/biographic-narrative interviews, including three sessions per victim; professionals completed semi-structured interviews. The researcher used contextualist thematic analysis, NVivo, and a multidisciplinary comparison of victim and professional accounts. Sampling eligibility required victims to have terminated therapy two years earlier.

Limitations (AI-Generated)

The small, purposive sample of six middle-aged female victims and six professionals limits generalisability beyond this specific Maltese population and setting. Qualitative thematic analysis depends on interpretation and may lack inter-rater reliability because an additional coder is needed but may not always be available. Interview accounts may be affected by reluctance to disclose, imperfect memory, tension, social desirability, and researcher presence. The supplied text does not include the full concluding limitations section, so these limitations are drawn from the stated methodology.

Future Work (AI-Generated)

Further local research should address theoretical and policy lacunae around romance-fraud victims’ wellbeing, service provision, and victims’ experiences with Maltese courts. Broader samples beyond middle-aged women and triangulation with professional perspectives would help test whether findings apply across victim groups. These directions are supported by the study’s stated aims and its acknowledgement of scarce local research; the supplied text does not provide the dissertation’s detailed further-research recommendations.

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.