Skip to main content

Behind the Mask: The Devastating Emotional Fallout of Catfishing

Hon, Stephnie ; Croucher, John (2026) — Journal of Medical Sciences and Health Care Research

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

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


              
              

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 publication examines catfishing as a predatory online behavior in dating contexts, focusing on how false identities are constructed and used to manipulate others for financial gain or emotional control. The authors describe catfishing as the creation of fake online personas—often with stolen or fabricated photos and background stories—to cultivate romantic or intimate connections, followed by coercion, manipulation, or extortion. The work situates catfishing within broader online fraud and identity-theft concerns, arguing that such deception harms victims’ emotional wellbeing, privacy, and financial security, and may lead to reputational damage. Methodologically, the article presents a narrative synthesis anchored by multiple case studies drawn from international examples. Cases illustrate varied disguises (for example, manipulative impostors posing as military personnel, professionals, or other attractive figures) and escalating demands for money, intimate images, or personal information. The discussion connects these stories to patterns of grooming, rapid shifts to private communications, and threats of exposure or sextortion. The authors also reference aggregate data from Australian authorities to quantify the scale of romance fraud, noting substantial financial losses and numerous victims in 2025. They underscore the legal and ethical dimensions of catfishing, including identity theft and potential criminal consequences for perpetrators. The publication concludes that catfishing is a serious digital-era harm with psychological, financial, and social ramifications. It advocates for platform verification, robust reporting mechanisms, and victim-support resources, while acknowledging that further research is needed to refine prevention and response strategies. The article emphasizes the importance of recognizing online deception as a legitimate public-safety concern and the necessity of safety education for users.

Identified Gaps

The article identifies a need for robust safety strategies and effective victim-support mechanisms. It provides no systematic empirical evidence on the effectiveness of verification, reporting, education, or support interventions.

Methods

The article is a narrative, case-based discussion of catfishing. It synthesizes cited literature, media reports, legal and coronial cases, and an Australian loss statistic to describe tactics, warning signs, harms, and possible safety responses. Although a section is labeled “Methods,” it describes offender techniques rather than a reproducible research protocol.

Limitations

No original sample, data-collection procedure, analytic method, inclusion criteria, or systematic review process is reported. Many assertions rely on illustrative media and legal cases, so prevalence, causal claims, and generalizability cannot be assessed. The article also combines financially motivated romance fraud with broader catfishing motives.

Future Work

Introduce victim-support mechanisms to mitigate catfishing-related harms. Platforms should invest in identity-verification systems, reporting mechanisms, and user education.

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