Skip to main content

No laughing matter

Cross, Cassandra (2015) — International Review of Victimology

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1177/0269758015571471 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Older Adults, Prevention, Psychology, Risk Factors, Victim Experience
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
                

            

                    

                
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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                    

                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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 online fraud victimization is framed and understood, focusing on the social dynamics that shape victims’ experiences. The study aims to illuminate the negativity surrounding online fraud and how victimization is socially constructed, with particular attention to blame and responsibility placed on victims themselves. The author grounds the analysis in qualitative interviews with 85 seniors in Queensland, Australia who had received fraudulent emails, to examine how discourse around victims operates in real-world contexts. The principal findings indicate that a strong, pervasive victim-blaming discourse dominates discussions of online fraud, extending beyond both nonvictims and victims and producing a powerful, controlling narrative about what victims did to incur losses. The study also shows that humor functions as a tool that reinforces this discourse, contributing to victim isolation and hindering disclosure to others. These dynamics shape victims’ willingness to seek support and can affect their recovery processes. In terms of implications, the article argues that identifying and challenging the victim-blaming discourse—and examining the social role of humor—constitutes an initial step toward facilitating victim recovery and future well-being. While the excerpt does not provide statistical measures, it emphasizes the need to address these social narratives to improve the experience and well-being of fraud victims. The analysis remains grounded in the experiences of the 85 seniors interviewed and cautions against broad generalizations beyond this context.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The article identifies a very small body of research on the specifics of online fraud victimization, primarily concentrated in the United Kingdom. It also notes limited research on social support for fraud victims. Evidence is needed on how victim-blaming discourse and humor shape disclosure, support access, and recovery, including among victims of romance fraud.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Qualitative study using 72 face-to-face semi-structured interviews with 85 Queensland residents aged 50 or older who had received fraudulent emails. Interviews examined personal background, computer use, responses to fraud requests, and impacts. Audio recordings were partially transcribed, de-identified, thematically coded, and further coded in NVivo for emergent issues. Participants included both respondents and non-respondents to fraud requests.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The self-selected, nonprobability sample was not intended to represent the general population. Recruitment differed by loss severity: people recruited publicly generally had no or small financial losses, whereas people with losses of tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars were recruited through police. Interviews were only partially transcribed, and the study concerns seniors in Queensland and primarily email-based online fraud.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Evaluate interventions that challenge victim-blaming and ridicule in discussions of online fraud, and assess whether they improve disclosure, support seeking, recovery, and well-being among victims. Broaden research beyond the limited, UK-concentrated literature on the specifics of online fraud victimization.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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