Online romance scams defraud dating website users of large amounts of money and inflict serious psychological harm. Victims of these scams often blame themselves for their losses and are blamed by others. We consider whether victims actually do share responsibility with the scammer for their losses. Three sorts of cases are particularly relevant: (i) where there are relatively many abortive meetings and even more fruitless money transfers in a single scam; (ii) where someone is a repeat scam victim; and (iii) where the victim has been warned by authorities that they are currently a victim of a scam and pay anyway. We argue that responsibility sometimes is shared, but that losses can be out of proportion to imprudence. Scam victims sometimes violate epistemic norms, but in ways that are peculiar to romantic attachment. The paper combines the methods of qualitative psychological research on scam victims and analytic philosophy (Research for this paper was supported by Grant EP/N028112/1 from the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council).
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Money might also be requested for other expenses (e.g. medical emergency, loan for business expenses; money to support education,) Sometimes these scams include an advance-fee fraud, where the victim is conned into believing they will receive gold or large amount of money, for a small fee (e.g. which they believe are contained in bags, held up in customs). The withdrawal of the meeting at the last moment seems to be psychologically important: the scam target feels that the meeting and the subsequent relationship is tantalisingly close, and their frustration may counteract inhibitions to pay yet again.
Perhaps surprisingly, the philosophical literature on victims misses the issues we are discussing here. Perhaps the most prominent kind of victim considered is someone who suffers a human rights violation. See Meyers (2018). There are also discussions about whether being the victim of crime creates a right to have the culprit punished by the state (Wertheimer 1991), or a right to have one’s suffering weighed in deliberations about sentencing. There is no recent journal literature on the definition of a victim and how, if at all, having a causal role in the production of the injury affects victim status. One of the only papers I have been able to find with a reasonable definition is James E Bayley, ‘The Concept of Victimhood’ (1991, 53): “People are victims if and only if (1) they have suffered a loss or some significant decrease in well-being unfairly or undeservedly and in such a manner that they were helpless to prevent the loss; (2) the loss has an identifiable cause; and (3) the legal or moral context of the loss entitles the sufferers of the loss to social concern”.
I have in mind “ledger” theories of responsibility, that is, theories that attribute some fault to the agent for what he has done, as opposed to holding him responsible through Strawsonian reactive attitudes. Attributions of responsibility in this sense need not make appropriate the expression of negative reactive attitudes such as blame. The distinction is explained in Section 2.2 of Eshleman (2016).
It is true that apparently willing co-operation sometimes has underneath it a significant element of compulsion or cognitive malfunctioning, as some qualitative research reveals (Whitty 2013). In those cases, victim status firms up as loss of responsibility increases.
The authors would like to thank Jethro Butler for surveying dating websites.
Scamsurvivors.com/podcasts/podcast 1; 10:20–26:00.
This imprudence is not necessarily connected in any way with “prudential citizenship”—a trend in public policy to transfer or responsibility for personal security, personal health and other goods from the government to the individual, sometimes against the background of a market in services providing or supporting these goods directed to individuals (Walklate and Mythen 2010).
ACCC Australians lose over $229 million to scams in 2015. https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/australians-lose-over-229-million-to-scams-in-2015. Accessed 24 Oct 2017.
Austin, J.L. 1979. A plea for excuses. In Philosophical Papers, ed. J.O. Urmson and G.J. Warnock. New York: Oxford University Press.
Barclays Bank. 2017. https://www.barclays.co.uk/security/financial-scams/.
Bayley, James E. 1991. The Concept of Victimhood in D Sank et al. To Be a Victim, 53–62. New York: Springer.
Buchanan, T., and M.T. Whitty. 2014. The Online Dating Romance Scam: Causes and Consequences of Victimhood. Psychology, Crime & Law 20 (3): 261–283.
Button, M., C. Nicholls, J. Kerr, and R. Oweb. 2014. Online Frauds; Learning from Victims Why they Fall for these Scams. Austalian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology l 47 (3): 391–408.
Christie, N. 1986. The ideal victim. In From Crime Policy to Victim Policy, ed. E. Fattah, 17–30. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Clifford, W.K. 1877. The ethics of belief. In The Contemporary Review, reprinted In: T. Madigan (ed.) (1999).
Conee, E., and R. Feldman. 2004. Evidentialism: Essays in Epistemology. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Eshleman, A. 2016. Moral responsibility. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. E.N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/moral-responsibility/.
Fiore, A.T. 2008. Self-Presentation and Deception in Online Dating. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~atf/papers/fiore_secrets_lies.pdf.
Guelke, J., and Sorell, T. 2017. Violations of Privacy and Law: the Case of Stalking. Law, Ethics and Philosophy. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316691730_Violations_of_Privacy_and_Law_The_Case_of_Stalking_1_Violations_of_Privacy_and_Law_The_Case_of_Stalking_33.
Lawson, H., and K. Leck. 2006. The Dynamics of Online Dating. Social Science Computer Review 24 (2): 189–208.
McKenna, K.Y.A., A.S. Green, and M.E.J. Gleason. 2002. Relationship Formation on the Internet: What’s the Big Attraction? Journal of Social Issues 58: 9–31.
Meyers, D. 2018. Victims’ Stories of Human Rights Abuse: The Ethics of Ownership. Dissemination, and Reception Metaphilosophy 49 (1–2): 40–57.
ONS Overview of Fraud Statistics: Year Ending March 2016. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/overviewoffraudstatistics/yearendingmarch2016. Accessed 24 Oct 2017.
Pew Foundation Report on Internet Dating and Relationships. 2013. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/online-dating-relationships/.
Pinciotti, C., and H. Orcutt. 2017. Understanding Gender Differences in Rape Victim Blaming: The Power of Social Influence and Just World Beliefs. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260517725736.
Scharlott, B.W., and W.G. Christ. 1995. Overcoming Relationship-Initiation Barriers: The Impact of a Computer-Dating System on Sex Role, Shyness, and Appearance Inhibitions. Computers in Human Behavior 11 (2): 191–204.
Shah, N. 2006. A New Argument for Evidentialism. Philosophical Quarterly 56: 481–498.
Smith, A., and M. Duggan. 2013. Online Dating and Relationships. Pew Research Centre Internet and Technology. http://www.pewinternet.org/2013/10/21/online-dating-relationships.
Stritzke, W.G.K., A. Nguyen, and K. Durkin. 2004. Shyness and Computer-Mediated Communication: A Self-presentational Theory Perspective. Media Psychology 6 (1): 1–22.
Toma, C.L., J. Hancock, and N. Ellison. 2008. Separating Fact from Fiction: An Examination of Deceptive Self-presentation in Online Dating Profiles. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 34 (8): 1023–1035.
Van der Bruggen, M., and A. Grubb. 2014. A Review of the Literature Relating to Rape Victim Blaming: An Analysis of the Impact of Observer and Victim Characteristics on Attribution of Blame in Rape Cases. Aggression and Violent Behavior 19 (5): 523–531.
Walklate, S., and G. Mythen. 2010. Agency, Reflexivity and Risk: Cosmopolitan, Neurotic or Prudential Citizen? British Journal of Sociology 61 (1): 45–62.
Walther, J.B. 1996. Computer-Mediated Communication: Impersonal, Interpersonal and Hyperpersonal Interaction. Communication Research 23: 3–43.
Walther, J.B., C. Slovacek, and L. Tidwell. 2001. Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? Photographic Images in Long-Term and Short-Term Computer-Mediated Communication. Communication Research 28: 105–134.
Wertheimer, R. 1991. Preferring punishment of criminals over providing for victims. In To Be a Victim, eds. D. Sank and D. Caplan. Plenum.
Whitty, M.T. 2008. Revealing the ‘Real’ Me, Searching for the ‘Actual’ You: Presentations of Self on an Internet Dating Site’. Computers in Human Behavior 24: 1707–1723.
Whitty, M.T. 2013. The Scammers Persuasive Techniques Model: Development of a Stage Model to Explain the Online Dating Romance Scam. British Journal of Criminology 53 (4): 665–684.
Whitty, M.T., and T. Buchanan. 2012. The Online Dating Romance Scam: A Serious Crime. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15 (3): 181–183.
Whitty, M.T., and T. Buchanan. 2016. The Online Dating Romance Scam: The Psychological Impact on Victims—Both Financial and Non-financial. Criminology & Criminal Justice 16 (2): 176–194.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Sorell, T., Whitty, M. Online romance scams and victimhood. Secur J 32, 342–361 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41284-019-00166-w
- Online dating
- Hyperpersonal internet use
- Online fraud
- Romance scams
- Moral responsibility
- Epistemic ethics