Skip to main content

CHAPTER 10 The Online Mutual Help Practices of Romance Fraud Victims

Pascale-Marie Cantin ; Fyscillia Ream ; Benoît Dupont (2025) — University of Ottawa Press eBooks

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
Unavailable
Average per calendar year
Citation count unavailable

Counts reflect Google Scholar’s coverage and do not measure research quality. Source, calculation and limitations

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1515/9780776645636-014 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Book Chapter
Country:   Global
Tags:   Digital Traces, Discussion Forums, Fraud Reporting, Online Mutual Help, Peer Support, Prevention, Romance Scams, Victim Recovery
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    Synopsis generation 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

                    

                    
An authenticated administrator approved the bibliographic record for public Library display. This is not a review of every research claim.


                                            
    
                                                            
  • 
                                    Approved for public display:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 chapter investigates how romance fraud victims use online mutual-help platforms to support themselves and others, proposing that a “security of self” can arise from bottom-up, community-driven practices when formal institutions fall short. Cantin, Ream, and Dupont analyze three discussion forums— ScamWarners, ScamSurvivors, and Signal-Arnaques—to understand how victims share experiences, mobilize help, and counter scammers. Their mixed-methods approach combines automated collection of forum data with qualitative coding of a substantial set of threads to reveal how these communities organize around post-incident recovery and prevention. The authors identify three intertwined mutual-help activities. First, victims support one another by telling stories, which helps break isolation and restore a sense of agency; peer encouragement and anonymous narration can empower individuals to reframe their experiences as survivorship rather than vulnerability. Second, forums function as repositories of digital traces—conversations, profiles, and modus operandi—that victims can share to identify fraud schemes and to warn others. Third, participants use forums to raise awareness and to provide practical guidance on recognizing red flags, reporting scams, and navigating supportive institutions, including where to seek help after an incident. The chapter also discusses how victims transition from novices to experienced “survivors” who mentor others, expose fraudulent profiles, and contribute to collective prevention efforts. It notes potential benefits and risks of these forums and calls for systematic evaluation of their effectiveness, privacy safeguards, and ways government actors might collaborate with or regulate such communities without eroding trust. Overall, the study positions online mutual help as a meaningful, if not definitively proven, complement to traditional victim support and cybercrime prevention efforts.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Research on romance fraud remains limited, especially in Canada. Prior work largely addresses fraud networks and victim consequences rather than post-incident experiences, victim agency, and online peer support. Few empirical studies examine online mutual help among crime victims, and the effectiveness of fraud-focused mutual-help forums is largely unknown.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The chapter used a hybrid design combining automated collection of public forum data with inductive qualitative content analysis. A customized Python script extracted post metadata and content from ScamWarners, ScamSurvivors, and Signal-Arnaques. The authors selected 1,000 conversations (335 per forum) based on original-post length and interactions, imported them into QDA Miner, and derived three themes: supporting victims, identifying fraudulent profiles, and raising awareness.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The chapter acknowledges that its platform-use analyses are limited in scope. The platform ranking uses ScamWarners posts from 2012–2021 and may have changed since 2021. The qualitative sample was restricted to 1,000 threads selected partly for post length, views, and responses, so less visible conversations may be underrepresented. The study does not test whether forum practices improve recovery or prevention outcomes.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Systematically and rigorously evaluate the benefits, shortcomings, and effectiveness of online mutual-help practices for fraud victims. Extend research to other platforms, including social media, where such practices arise organically. Examine protective measures by email providers that may limit fraudulent account creation.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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