Skip to main content

Understanding Romance Fraud: Insights From Domestic Violence Research

Cassandra Cross ; Molly Dragiewicz ; Kelly Richards (2018) — The British Journal of Criminology

View Original Source (opens in a new tab)

DOI: 10.1093/bjc/azy005 (opens in a new tab)

Type:   Journal Article
Country:   Australia
Tags:   Australia, Coercive Control, Domestic Violence, Economic Abuse, Online Dating, Online Fraud, Psychological Abuse, Psychological Maltreatment, Romance Scams, Victim Narratives, 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:
                                    
                                
    • 
                                                            
  • 
                                    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

                    

                    
The record is approved for public display, but a complete historical administrator action is not recorded.


                    
                                        

                

                            

                    
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

            
The article conducts a retrospective qualitative thematic analysis of 21 Australian romance-fraud victim interviews drawn from a larger study of 80 online-fraud victims who reported losses of AUD$10,000 or more to Scamwatch. Interviews were semi-structured, primarily face-to-face, transcribed verbatim, imported into NVivo, and deductively coded by the first author using Tolman et al.'s nine psychological-maltreatment categories. Romance-fraud victims experience a double loss: grief for the relationship and financial losses. Romance-fraud victim support services were described as basically non-existent, and understanding psychological maltreatment may help identify victim needs and improve recovery support. The sample was drawn from a broader online-fraud study rather than research designed specifically for romance fraud or psychological maltreatment.

          

        
                  

            
Identified Gaps

            
Romance fraud had received little scholarly attention, with fewer than a dozen publications identified. Prior work primarily addressed initial grooming and persuasion, while little was known about how offenders secure ongoing compliance and repeated payments. The authors identify limited evidence on chronic victimization and the reasons victims continue transferring money. Support services for romance-fraud victims were described as basically non-existent. The applicability of unobserved psychological-maltreatment categories requires dedicated research.

          

        
                  

            
Methods

            
The article conducts a retrospective qualitative thematic analysis of 21 Australian romance-fraud victim interviews drawn from a larger study of 80 online-fraud victims who reported losses of AUD$10,000 or more to Scamwatch. Interviews were semi-structured, primarily face-to-face, transcribed verbatim, imported into NVivo, and deductively coded by the first author using Tolman et al.’s nine psychological-maltreatment categories. The analysis examines whether and how these domestic-violence-derived tactics appeared in victim–offender relationship narratives.

          

        
                  

            
Limitations

            
The sample was drawn from a broader online-fraud study rather than research designed specifically for romance fraud or psychological maltreatment. Consequently, some abuse types may not have occurred or may simply not have been discussed. The typology was applied retrospectively, and five interviews—each with male victims—contained no relevant information, though these victims may still have experienced maltreatment. Detailed demographics for the romance-fraud subsample were unavailable because of privacy and confidentiality requirements.

          

        
                  

            
Future Work

            
Conduct purpose-built romance-fraud research to determine whether unobserved psychological maltreatment, including rigid sex-role expectations and trivial requests, occurs in victims’ experiences. Investigate why victims make chronic, ongoing transfers over lengthy periods and the factors shaping continued compliance. Develop prevention and intervention measures that foreground positive manipulation, isolation, offender benefits, and intentionality. Examine victim needs and support responses, including whether lessons from domestic-violence services can improve recovery support.

          

              

    
    

        
Related Research Insights

        

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