Despite the rapid evolution of online scams, the narratives we construct about their victims continue to reflect outdated assumptions and unexamined biases. Too often, the language used in media coverage, social media commentary, and everyday conversations subtly or overtly implies culpability on the part of those targeted by professional, highly manipulative criminal operations. This tendency toward victim-blaming is not only ethically troubling but also socially harmful, as it perpetuates stigma, discourages reporting, and obscures the systemic and psychological nature of contemporary fraud.

If we are to meaningfully address the growing epidemic of online fraud, it is crucial that we interrogate how we talk about scam victims and foster a more responsible, empirically-informed, and empathetic narrative.

The Psychology of Victim-Blaming

Victim-blaming occurs when commentary about a crime focuses on what the victim did or failed to do, rather than on the perpetrator’s actions. In the context of scams whether romance fraud, phishing schemes, cryptocurrency investment or impersonation scams, this often manifests through phrases like:

"How could they fall for that?"

"I would never be so gullible."

"They should have known better."

Such language ignores both the psychological tactics employed by fraudsters and the cognitive, social, and emotional contexts that make individuals vulnerable. It also reinforces damaging myths about susceptibility wrongly suggesting that being scammed reflects a personal failing or a lack of intelligence when in reality, anyone can be manipulated under the right conditions.

The psychological and sociological research literature consistently demonstrates that scams exploit cognitive biases, emotional states, and social trust mechanisms that are universal across populations. Classic persuasion techniques like authority impersonation, scarcity, reciprocity, social proof, and urgency creation are intentionally designed to bypass rational scrutiny (Cialdini, 2007). More recent work has shown that digital fraudsters actively exploit moments of emotional distress, loneliness, and cognitive overload, conditions amplified by modern life and global crises like the COVID-19 pandemic (Whitty, 2020; Cross, Dragiewicz, & Richards, 2021).

The concept of victim-blaming itself is deeply rooted in social psychology. Lerner and Simmons’ (1966) foundational work on the “just world hypothesis” revealed a human tendency to assume that people get what they deserve, a cognitive bias that prompts observers to blame victims in order to preserve a belief in a predictable and fair world. This psychological reflex persists in public attitudes toward fraud victims (Cross, Richards, & Smith, 2016), and contemporary studies confirm that media narratives often exacerbate this effect (Spohr & Gudjonsson, 2022).

New Insights: Scam Victimology in the 2020s

Recent empirical studies have expanded our understanding of how scam victims experience and respond to fraud. A landmark qualitative study by Oak and Shafiq (2025), for example, analyzed the lifecycle of “pig-butchering scams”, elaborate cons combining romance and investment fraud, based on interviews with 26 victims. The research exposed a highly staged manipulation process involving emotional grooming, simulated financial gains, and social isolation tactics. The findings emphasized that what might appear as “obvious red flags” in hindsight were, at the time, obscured by psychological conditioning and systematic deceit. Similarly, Drew and Webster (2024) conducted narrative interviews with romance fraud victims, revealing how fraudsters exploit emotional vulnerabilities and existing social norms around trust and love. Victims frequently described feelings of shame, disbelief, and isolation often worsened by unsympathetic reactions from friends, family, and media. Further reinforcing these findings, a 2024 survey by Alashwali et al. on debit and credit card fraud victims found that psychological distress (anxiety, shame, loss of trust) often outweighed the financial impact of the crime. Crucially, victims tended to detect fraud themselves, often after prolonged periods of uncertainty and cognitive strain demonstrating how scams capitalize on both emotional and cognitive load. Finally, major UK Home Office study (2025) examining cyber fraud victims’ experiences reported alarmingly high rates of post-traumatic stress symptoms, suicidal ideation, and institutional failures in victim support. The research underscored that victim-blaming language and attitudes are a significant barrier to help-seeking and reporting. These studies collectively affirm what victimologists and cybercrime researchers have long suspected: that contemporary scams are not “simple tricks,” but highly engineered psychological operations that can ensnare people from all walks of life.

Why Language Matters

The way we describe scam victims carries tangible social consequences. Studies in victimology and media studies show that when victims are blamed, whether implicitly or explicitly, they are less likely to report the crime, seek help, or warn others (Cross, Richards, & Smith, 2016; Spohr & Gudjonsson, 2022). This not only isolates individuals but also strengthens fraudsters’ ability to operate undetected. A recent study on cyber-fraud perceptions among Chinese university students (Springer, 2024) revealed that while actual victimization rates were relatively low, pervasive fear and stigma around being scammed were disproportionately high, reinforcing a cultural climate where people fear disclosure and judgment, rather than fraud itself. Media coverage, headlines, and public discourse play a pivotal role in shaping these attitudes. Headlines like “Man sends $50,000 to online lover he never met” subtly assign fault by emphasizing the victim’s decision-making. A more accurate framing might be: “Sophisticated romance scam defrauds local man of $50,000,” shifting focus to the crime’s complexity and the perpetrator’s tactics.

Toward a More Ethical and Evidence-Based Discourse

If we are serious about addressing the growing problem of online fraud and scams, we must foster a social environment where victims feel supported, believed, and empowered to speak out. This requires a collective effort to:

• Use neutral, nonjudgmental language when discussing scam incidents.
  
   
• Center responsibility on perpetrators and enabling systems, not on victims’ actions.
  
   
• Acknowledge the sophistication and calculated psychology behind modern scams.
  
   
• Challenge stereotypes about who “gets scammed”, recognizing that demographic myths fuel stigma and misinformation.
  
   
• Encourage reporting and information-sharing without shame or judgment.
  
   

Academics, journalists, policymakers, and digital literacy educators bear particular responsibility here. The narratives we craft and the assumptions we leave unchallenged shape public awareness, institutional responses, and ultimately, the social safety net available to those targeted by increasingly sophisticated fraud schemes.

As fraud continues to evolve in parallel with our digital lives, the public conversation about it must evolve as well. The narratives we create, the language we choose, and the biases we leave unexamined all shape the societal response to these crimes. Moving away from victim-blaming is not simply about courtesy, it is a public health, social justice, and ethical imperative. The words we use can wound, or they can heal. In the fight against online fraud, we need to ensure they do the latter.

References

Alashwali, E. S., Furnell, S., & Papadaki, M. (2024). Detection and impact of debit/credit card fraud: Victims’ experiences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.08131. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.08131

Button, M., Johnston, L., & Frimpong, K. (2014). Fighting fraud: The case for a national fraud strategy. Crime Prevention and Community Safety, 16(2), 108–125. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpcs.2014.3

Cialdini, R. B. (2007). Influence: The psychology of persuasion (Rev. ed.). Harper Business.

Cross, C., Dragiewicz, M., & Richards, K. (2021). Understanding romance fraud: Insights from cybercrime victimisation research. International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 15(1), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4741202

Cross, C., Richards, K., & Smith, R. (2016). Improving the police response to online fraud. Policing and Society, 26(3), 345–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2014.989158

Drew, K., & Webster, S. (2024). The victimology of online fraud: A focus on romance fraud victimisation. Journal of Economic Criminology and Victimisation Studies, 3(1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2949791424000058

Home Office. (2025). Understanding the cyber crime and fraud victim journey: Qualitative research report. UK Government. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/understanding-the-cyber-crime-and-fraud-victim-journey

Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. H. (1966). Observer’s reaction to the ‘innocent victim’: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0023562

Oak, M., & Shafiq, Z. (2025). Hello, is this Anna? A first look at pig-butchering scams. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.20821. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20821

Spohr, C., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2022). Media portrayals of cyber fraud victims: Implications for public perceptions and victim support. Victims & Offenders, 17(2), 208–230. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2021.1942393

Springer, C. (2024). Fear and perceived risk of cyber fraud among Chinese university students. Crime, Law and Social Change, 81(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-024-10155-9

Whitty, M. T. (2020). The online romance scam: A serious cybercrime. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 23(2), 117–121. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2019.0192