Skip to main content

‘Should’ve known better’: Using Lerner’s Belief in a Just World to understand how the Fraud Justice Network observe victims of online romance and investment frauds

Shalini Nataraj-Hansen (2023) — International Review of Victimology

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
12
Average per calendar year
3.0

Count checked .

12 citations ÷ 4 calendar years (2023–2026). The first and last years may be partial. This is a lifetime average, not a year-by-year citation history.

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: 10.1177/02697580231167901 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Belief In A Just World, Fraud Justice Network, Investment Fraud, Law Enforcement, Online Fraud, Professional Perspectives, Psychology, Romance Scams, Victim Blame, Victim Experience, Victim Support
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 article investigates how Lerner’s Belief in a Just World (BJW) helps explain how professionals within the Fraud Justice Network (FJN) perceive victims of online romance and investment fraud. Drawing on qualitative interviews with 14 FJN representatives and employing thematic analysis, the study asks whether BJW is expressed among FJN professionals and, if so, how it shapes judgments about victims’ blame, responsibility, and deservedness of justice. The work situates online fraud as a high-loss, emotionally charged crime and situates the FJN as a loose, cross-agency network that guides reporting, investigation, and victim support. Three core themes emerge from the data. First, victims are seen as exercising behavioral responsibility or agency, rather than being purely unlucky targets. Second, agency is framed as blameworthy when victims demonstrate gullibility or make questionable choices, though this blame is tempered when loneliness or manipulation is acknowledged. Third, despite blame directed at victims, the professionals express a belief that victims deserve justice and the resources and attention needed to pursue it. Across these themes, BJW appears in professional discourse, shaping how agents attribute responsibility and how they envision outcomes for victims. The article discusses implications for policy and practice, noting that the persistence of victim-blaming discourses can impede empathetic support and effective reporting. It argues that reframing victims as people in need of assistance—rather than as responsible agents—could improve intervention, reporting, and access to justice, while acknowledging the study’s limitations, including a small, self-selected sample that may not generalize to the broader FJN.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies limited application of Belief in a Just World theory to online fraud and little knowledge of how Fraud Justice Network professionals perceive victims. It notes no known Australian study from Fraud Justice Network professionals' perspectives on romance or investment fraud victims and justice. It also indicates that few empirical studies have examined professional perceptions of online fraud.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The study conducted 14 semi-structured interviews with Australian Fraud Justice Network professionals in policing, private investigation, finance, cybersecurity, investment fraud expertise, and law. Interviews used romance-fraud and investment-fraud vignettes and open-ended questions about victims, blame, justice, and reporting. Conducted from August 2020 to April 2021, interviews averaged 60 minutes. Data were openly coded in NVivo and analyzed thematically, producing themes of agency, gullibility and compensation, and deservedness of justice.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The study used a small, self-selecting sample of 14 Fraud Justice Network professionals, so participants' views may not generalize to the broader network. The sample was heavily male and years of professional experience were not formally collected. Because Belief in a Just World was not quantitatively measured, the study cannot determine participants' level of adherence to that belief.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Future research should test causal links between adherence to Belief in a Just World and victim blame in online fraud. It should also use larger, representative samples of Fraud Justice Network professionals. The discussion further supports examining whether empathetic, evidence-based institutional interventions, referrals, and myth-debunking campaigns improve help-seeking, reporting, and early intervention.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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