How scams are discussed strongly shapes how people respond to risk.1 When digital deception is framed as a rare event, a dramatic crime, or a personal failure, people tend to react with fear, shame, or false reassurance. These reactions may raise awareness, but they do little to reduce vulnerability. Fear narrows attention. Shame discourages disclosure. False reassurance reinforces the belief that “this would never happen to me.”
Psychology-informed framing takes a different approach. It focuses on early psychological warning signs, mental states, and protective behaviors, rather than dramatic outcomes or blame. This approach recognizes that most harm occurs before a clear crime is visible, during moments of pressure when judgment is already under strain.
Across the six victim profiles, vulnerability increases when public narratives discourage early disclosure or reinforce false confidence. When people believe that only careless or uninformed individuals are targeted, they are less likely to question situations that feel familiar or hopeful. This delays protective action and increases escalation.
Below are ways the media can understand digital deception and risk in healthier ways:
1. Focus on Early Psychological Warning Signs
-Recommendation: Pay attention to early signals before harm occurs.
-Psychological basis: Scams rarely escalate suddenly. Urgency, secrecy, emotional reassurance, reduced checking, and pressure to decide appear early. These signals indicate rising cognitive load and increasing reliance on System 1 thinking.
-Real-life application: Treat pressure and emotional discomfort as cues to pause and reassess, not as reasons to act faster.
2. Avoid Blame-Based Interpretations
-Recommendation: Remove blame from how scams are discussed.
-Psychological basis: Blame increases shame and suppresses reflection.2 It also fuels optimism bias by convincing people that harm only happens to others.
-Real-life application: Frame vulnerability as situational, not moral. This keeps judgment accessible.
3. Treat Early Disclosure as Protection
-Recommendation: Encourage people to speak up early.
-Psychological basis: Isolation strengthens manipulation. External perspectives restore reflective thinking.
-Real-life application: Normalize sharing doubts before certainty collapses into commitment.
4. Resist Sensationalism and Fear Amplification
-Recommendation: Choose explanatory coverage over fear-based storytelling.
-Psychological basis: High emotional arousal reduces reflection and increases susceptibility.
-Real-life application: Focus on mechanisms, not shock.
5. Prioritize Learning Over Emotional Reaction
-Recommendation: Emphasize understanding rather than dramatic outcomes.
-Psychological basis: Learning how manipulation works restores agency and supports prevention.
-Real-life application: Teach process, not just consequences.
Conclusion
Healthier scam awareness reduces harm by shifting attention from blame to early recognition. When people understand how pressure distorts judgment, they act earlier, share sooner, and protect themselves more effectively.
- Balcombe, Luke, et al. “Falling into a Black Hole: A Qualitative Exploration of the Lived Experiences of Cyberscam Victim-Survivors and Their Social Support Networks.” Victims & Offenders (2025). https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2025.2481267. ↩︎
- Cross, Cassandra, et al. “The Reporting Experiences and Support Needs of Victims of Online Fraud.” Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice 518 (2016). Australian Institute of Criminology. ↩︎
