Skip to main content

‘They’re Very Lonely’: Understanding the Fraud Victimisation of Seniors

Cassandra Cross (2016) — International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy

Citation activity

Total citations · Google Scholar
117
Average per calendar year
10.6

Count checked .

117 citations ÷ 11 calendar years (2016–2026). 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: 10.5204/ijcjsd.v5i4.268 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Canada
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Older Adults, Victim Experience
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 older adults become targets of fraud by examining the perspectives of volunteers who support senior victims in Canada. It situates fraud victimisation within two competing discourses: one that portrays older victims as weak and vulnerable, and another that characterises victims as greedy or gullible. Using interviews with twenty-one volunteers who themselves are seniors and who provide telephone support through the Senior Support Unit (SSU) of the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre, the study analyzes how these volunteers understand the factors behind fraud against seniors and what this means for support. The findings indicate that volunteers overwhelmingly frame fraud victimisation in terms of social vulnerability, particularly loneliness and isolation. They describe how such vulnerability can motivate seniors to seek connection online or over the phone, creating openings for offenders to establish relationships. The analysis shows limited or carefully restrained support for victim-blaming narratives; volunteers often resist blaming victims and emphasize external factors beyond the person’s control. The paper discusses how these discourses influence a senior’s willingness to disclose victimisation and to seek help, highlighting that perceived vulnerability can nonetheless create barriers to reporting and access to services. In discussing implications, the article argues that conceptualising fraud as a consequence of social isolation can justify and operationalize targeted support, such as ongoing, relationship-based telephone assistance offered by the SSU. It also notes limitations, including reliance on volunteers’ accounts and the absence of victims’ own perspectives on their experiences. Overall, the study suggests that a vulnerability-centered understanding supports recovery and repeat-victimisation prevention through sustained, connection-oriented assistance.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The study identifies limited victim-support avenues for fraud survivors and an absence of evidence on victims’ own interpretations of fraud and their experiences of SSU support. It also cannot determine whether volunteers’ emphasis on social isolation shapes the support they deliver. The broader literature cited remains inconclusive on whether older adults are disproportionately susceptible to fraud.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 21 senior volunteers from the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre’s Senior Support Unit in North Bay, Ontario. The author conducted 20 face-to-face interviews and one telephone interview in February 2014. Recordings were transcribed, uploaded to NVivo, and analyzed through interview-schedule coding plus open and axial coding.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
This convenience sample of SSU volunteers is not representative of volunteers across victim-support services. Findings reflect volunteers’ accumulated interpretations, not victims’ own accounts, and those interpretations may have changed over time. Volunteers did not verify information received from victims or family members, so accounts may represent only one version of events. The study cannot establish how victims experience SSU support or link support practices to volunteers’ beliefs.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Research should examine how victims themselves experience SSU support and explain why they believe the fraud occurred. It should also assess whether the support offered is related to volunteers’ dominant understanding of fraud as arising from social isolation and vulnerability, and whether volunteers’ senior status shapes this interpretation.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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