Skip to main content

Why do fraud victims get blamed? Lerner’s Belief in a Just World and its application to victims of online fraud

Nataraj-Hansen, Shalini ; Richards, Kelly (2022) — Journal of Financial Crime

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1108/jfc-02-2022-0037 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Global
Tags:   AI-Enabled Fraud, Belief In A Just World, Cross Cultural, Fraud Victimization, Justice Responses, Online Fraud, Psychological Harm, Psychology, Reporting, Romance Scams, Victim Blame, 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 publication examines why victims of online fraud experience unusually high levels of blame from others and themselves. The authors challenge the prevailing reliance on Nils Christie’s ideal victim framework by proposing that Lerner’s Belief in a Just World (BJW) theory provides a more precise explanation for survivor blame in online fraud contexts. They argue that BJW operates as a psychological mechanism that motivates observers to derogate or fault victims in order to restore a sense that the world is orderly and just, especially when injustice is perceived as avoidable or attributable to the victim’s behavior. The article advances two central claims. First, BJW predicts greater blame when victims are perceived as bearing behavioral responsibility for their loss, a dynamic highly relevant to online fraud where victims are seen as exercising agency in divulging information or transferring funds. Second, BJW posits that the level of compensation or vindication available to victims shapes the degree of blame: when compensation is unlikely, observers may increasingly blame the victim to preserve a sense of justice. The authors link these propositions to the practical realities of online fraud, noting that victims often receive little formal redress and report low engagement with investigative or judicial processes. They acknowledge that existing scholarship has drawn on Christie’s ideal victim concept but maintain that BJW offers a more granular account of blame dynamics and could inform future research and practice aimed at supporting victims and improving responses by the fraud justice network. Overall, the piece lays groundwork for empirical testing of BJW’s relevance to online fraud victim blaming and for refining interventions to reduce stigma and improve reporting and support.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
The paper identifies little research explaining why online-fraud victims experience such extreme and consistent victim blame. Existing work mainly applies Christie’s ideal-victim thesis, which the authors argue identifies who is blamed but provides only a limited explanation of why blame occurs. The proposed BJW explanation requires empirical testing in online-fraud contexts.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
This is a conceptual paper. It synthesizes existing scholarship on online-fraud victimization, victim blame, Christie’s ideal-victim thesis, and Lerner’s Belief in a Just World theory. It advances two theoretical mechanisms: perceived victim agency or behavioral responsibility, and the absence of financial, criminal, or social compensation.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The article is theoretical rather than an original empirical study. Its proposed links between BJW, perceived victim agency, lack of compensation, and blame toward online-fraud victims are argued from prior literature and have not been directly tested in an online-fraud sample.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Test whether people with stronger Belief in a Just World (BJW) beliefs blame online-fraud victims more than those with weaker BJW beliefs, including experimental tests of the proposed responsibility and compensation mechanisms.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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