Logical Fallacies – What They Are and How They Affect Scam Victims
Understanding How Decision-Making is Influenced by Logical Fallacies in Scam Victims Before, During, and After the Scam
Primary Category: Scam Victim Recovery Psychology
Author:
• Tim McGuinness, Ph.D. – Anthropologist, Scientist, Director of the Society of Citizens Against Relationship Scams Inc.
About This Article
Logical fallacies play a significant role in the cognitive and emotional challenges that scam victims face, both during and after being scammed. These errors in reasoning can make victims more susceptible to manipulation by scammers, causing them to ignore warning signs or justify the scammer’s behavior.
Even after recognizing they have been scammed, these fallacies can inhibit their recovery, leading to prolonged emotional distress and difficulty in moving forward. By understanding and identifying these logical fallacies, victims can better protect themselves from future scams and aid their psychological and emotional recovery. Recognizing these flawed thinking patterns is crucial for overcoming the negative impacts of being scammed and regaining a sense of control and well-being.
Logical Fallacies Play a Large Role in Scam Victim Cognition, Vulnerability, and Ability to Recover After the Scam
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument.
Logical Fallacies often appear convincing at first glance but fail to hold up under scrutiny. Understanding these fallacies is crucial because they can lead to misunderstandings and poor decision-making.
Logical Fallacies are closely related to Cognitive Biases but are not actually the same thing. A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from rationality in judgment, often unconsciously affecting decisions and perceptions, while a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or argument that leads to an invalid conclusion, typically occurring within a structured debate or discourse.
Logical Fallacy Examples:
Here are some common logical fallacies with examples of how they appear in everyday life:
Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem (Personal Attack)
Definition: This fallacy occurs when someone attacks the character or motive of a person making an argument rather than the argument itself.
Example: During a political debate, instead of addressing the opponent’s policies, one candidate says, “You can’t trust him; he’s been divorced twice!” The argument shifts from policy to personal life, which is irrelevant to the political discussion.
Logical Fallacies: Straw Man
Definition: This involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack.
Example: Person A says, “We should improve public education.” Person B responds, “My opponent believes that the only solution to our problems is to throw money at schools, but that won’t solve anything.” Person B is distorting Person A’s position to make it easier to argue against.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance
Definition: This fallacy occurs when it’s argued that something must be true because it hasn’t been proven false, or vice versa.
Example: “No one has ever proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must be real.” This argument assumes that lack of evidence against something is proof of its truth.
Logical Fallacies: False Dilemma (False Dichotomy)
Definition: This fallacy presents two options as the only possibilities when in fact more options exist.
Example: “You either support increasing military spending, or you’re against our troops.” This ignores other possible positions, such as supporting the troops through better pay or veterans’ benefits without increasing overall military spending.
Logical Fallacies: Slippery Slope
Definition: This fallacy assumes that a relatively small first step will inevitably lead to a chain of related events resulting in some significant (usually negative) effect.
Example: “If we allow students to redo assignments, next thing you know, they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually, they’ll think they don’t have to study at all.” This argument exaggerates the consequences of a small action.
Logical Fallacies: Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question)
Definition: This fallacy occurs when the conclusion of an argument is assumed in the phrasing of the question itself.
Example: “I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth.” The statement assumes what it is trying to prove without providing evidence.
Logical Fallacies: Bandwagon Fallacy (Ad Populum)
Definition: This fallacy argues that something must be true or good because many people believe it or do it.
Example: “Everyone is buying the latest smartphone model, so it must be the best one available.” The argument relies on popularity rather than actual quality or value.
Logical Fallacies: Hasty Generalization
Definition: This fallacy involves making a broad conclusion based on a small or unrepresentative sample.
Example: “My neighbor’s kids are rude, so all kids today must be badly behaved.” This generalizes a few observations to an entire group without sufficient evidence.
Logical Fallacies: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause)
Definition: This fallacy assumes that if one event occurred after another, the first must have caused the second.
Example: “I wore my lucky shirt, and we won the game. My shirt must have caused the win!” This incorrectly links two unrelated events.
Logical Fallacies: Appeal to Emotion
Definition: This fallacy manipulates emotions to win an argument rather than using valid reasoning.
Example: “Think of the poor children who will be affected if we don’t act now!” While the argument appeals to emotion, it may lack substantial evidence or logic to support the action proposed.
Understanding and identifying these fallacies can help you evaluate arguments more critically and avoid being misled by flawed reasoning in everyday conversations, media, and decision-making processes.
Now think about how many of these are being used in political discourse right now? However, your biases will probably only allow you to see the opponents as doing this.
This also happens before, during, and after relationship scams!
Logical Fallacies Compared to Cognitive Biases
Logical fallacies and cognitive biases are related but distinct concepts in the cognition of reasoning and decision-making.
Logical Fallacies
Definition: Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that undermine the logic of an argument. They occur when the structure of an argument is flawed, leading to invalid or weak conclusions.
Example: A common logical fallacy is the Ad Hominem fallacy, where the argument is attacked based on the person making it rather than the merits of the argument itself.
Cognitive Biases
Definition: Cognitive biases are systematic patterns of deviation from rationality in judgment. They are mental shortcuts that often arise from the brain’s attempt to simplify information processing.
Example: Confirmation Bias is a cognitive bias where people tend to search for, interpret, and remember information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs.
Relationship Between Logical Fallacies and Cognitive Biases
Overlap: While logical fallacies and cognitive biases are distinct, they can overlap. For instance, a cognitive bias might lead someone to use a logical fallacy. For example, confirmation bias might lead a person to commit a hasty generalization fallacy by drawing a broad conclusion based on limited evidence that supports their belief.
Differences: Logical fallacies are more about the structure of arguments and reasoning, while cognitive biases are about how we process information and make judgments.
Example of Overlap
Hasty Generalization (a logical fallacy) could be influenced by Availability Bias (a cognitive bias), where a person draws a conclusion based on information that is most readily available to them, rather than all the evidence.
In summary, while logical fallacies and cognitive biases are different, they are interconnected. Cognitive biases often underlie the use of logical fallacies, influencing the way we construct and evaluate arguments.
Scam Victim Vulnerability and Logical Fallacies
Scam victims often fall prey to logical fallacies that make them more vulnerable to relationship scams, both before and during the crime. These fallacies can cloud judgment, leading to poor decision-making and increased susceptibility to manipulation by scammers. Here are some common logical fallacies that scam victims may have or use:
Appeal to Emotion (Pathos)
Description: This fallacy occurs when an argument is made based on emotions rather than logic. Scammers often exploit victims’ emotions, such as loneliness, love, or fear, to manipulate them into making decisions that they wouldn’t otherwise make.
Example: A scammer may play on a victim’s fear of being alone or their desire for love, leading the victim to ignore red flags and continue the relationship despite warning signs.
Confirmation Fallacy (Related to Confirmation Bias)
Description: Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs while disregarding information that contradicts them. This can lead to a confirmation fallacy, where someone accepts only the evidence that supports their pre-existing beliefs.
Example: A victim might focus on the positive aspects of their interactions with the scammer while ignoring or rationalizing away suspicious behavior, believing the scammer’s excuses because it aligns with their hope that the relationship is genuine.
Bandwagon Fallacy
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone believes something is true or acceptable simply because many others believe it or are doing it.
Example: A scam victim might be influenced by the perception that “everyone” they know is finding love online, making them more likely to ignore risks and trust someone they’ve met through an online platform.
Appeal to Authority
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone believes a claim is true because an authority or perceived expert supports it, even if the authority is not credible or relevant.
Example: A scammer might claim to be a successful businessman or a military officer, and the victim may trust them simply based on this perceived authority without verifying their credentials.
False Dilemma (Either/Or Fallacy)
Description: This fallacy presents a situation as having only two alternatives, one of which is usually extreme, when in reality, there are more options.
Example: A scam victim might believe that they must either continue the relationship with the scammer or be alone, not considering other options such as seeking genuine connections or focusing on self-care.
Gambler’s Fallacy
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone believes that past events can influence the likelihood of future events in situations that are independent and random.
Example: A scam victim might think that because they have invested so much time or money into the relationship, it must eventually lead to a positive outcome, even though each interaction with the scammer is independent and likely manipulated.
Appeal to Flattery
Description: This fallacy involves using flattery to persuade someone to accept a proposition that they might otherwise reject.
Example: Scammers often shower victims with compliments and affection, making them feel special and valued, which can cloud the victim’s judgment and make them more susceptible to manipulation.
Sunk Cost Fallacy (Also a Cognitive Bias)
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone continues a behavior or endeavor due to previously invested resources (time, money, effort), rather than considering the present and future costs.
Example: A victim might continue sending money to a scammer because they’ve already sent so much, thinking they must see it through to recover their losses, even though continuing the behavior only increases their losses.
Appeal to Pity
Description: This fallacy is when someone tries to win support for an argument or idea by exploiting their opponent’s feelings of pity or guilt.
Example: A scammer might tell a sob story about needing money for a sick relative or to escape a dire situation, leading the victim to send money out of sympathy.
Overgeneralization (Hasty Generalization)
Description: This fallacy occurs when someone makes a broad claim based on a small amount of evidence.
Example: A victim might believe that because the scammer shared a few personal details that seemed true or relatable, the entire persona the scammer presents must be genuine.
Understanding these logical fallacies can help scam victims recognize when their thinking may be leading them astray. By identifying these flawed patterns of reasoning, individuals can better protect themselves from manipulation and avoid becoming victims of scams.
Logical Fallacies Getting in the Way of Scam Victim Recovery
Scam victims often struggle with psychological and emotional recovery due to the influence of several logical fallacies that impair their healing process. Some of these fallacies include:
Appeal to Pity: Victims may believe that dwelling on their suffering is necessary or justified, leading them to continually relive the trauma instead of seeking ways to heal. This fallacy can keep them stuck in a cycle of self-pity and prevent them from moving forward.
False Attribution Fallacy: Victims might wrongly attribute their negative experiences with the scam to their overall self-worth or intelligence. They may think, “I was scammed because I’m stupid or worthless,” which can damage self-esteem and hinder recovery by reinforcing a negative self-image.
Appeal to Tradition: Some victims may believe that because they have always been trusting or kind-hearted, they should continue these behaviors without adjustment. This fallacy can prevent them from learning from the experience and making necessary changes to protect themselves in the future.
Sunk Cost Fallacy: Victims might feel that because they have invested so much time, money, or emotional energy into the scam, they must continue to dwell on it. This fallacy can make it difficult for them to let go of the past and focus on recovery, as they feel compelled to justify their losses rather than move on.
Personal Incredulity Fallacy: Victims may find it hard to believe that something so manipulative and deceitful could happen to them, leading them to remain in denial or disbelief. This inhibits their ability to fully accept the situation and take the necessary steps toward healing.
Appeal to Emotion: Victims may stay in a state of emotional turmoil because they believe their intense emotions validate their experience. This can lead to prolonged suffering, as they may resist efforts to rationalize the situation or adopt a more objective perspective that would aid in recovery.
Overgeneralization (Hasty Generalization): After being scammed, victims might overgeneralize their experience, believing that all people are untrustworthy or that they will never be able to trust again. This fallacy can lead to social isolation and prevent the rebuilding of healthy relationships.
Fallacy of Division: Victims may assume that because they were scammed in one relationship, their entire ability to judge character or engage in relationships is flawed. This can lead to a lack of confidence in their interpersonal skills and a reluctance to engage in future relationships or social interactions.
Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): Victims may find themselves caught in a loop of thinking, such as, “I’m not recovering because I can’t let go, and I can’t let go because I’m not recovering.” This fallacy can trap them in a cycle of negative thinking, making it difficult to break free and start the healing process.
No True Scotsman Fallacy: Some victims may reject the idea of recovery strategies that have helped others, believing that their situation is unique or worse. This can prevent them from accepting support or trying methods that could actually aid in their recovery.
Recognizing these logical fallacies is an essential step for scam victims in overcoming the barriers that impede their psychological and emotional recovery. By challenging these fallacies, victims can adopt healthier thought patterns and move toward a more positive and empowered state of mind.
How to Recognize Logical Fallacies
Recognizing that you are using logical fallacies in your thinking involves several key steps:
Self-Reflection and Awareness: Begin by paying attention to your thoughts, especially when you feel strongly about something. Ask yourself if your reasoning is based on evidence or emotion, and whether you’re making assumptions without solid backing.
Learn About Common Logical Fallacies: Familiarize yourself with common logical fallacies, such as appeal to emotion, overgeneralization, or circular reasoning. Understanding these will help you spot them in your own thinking.
Seek External Feedback: Discuss your thoughts and reasoning with others. Often, a third party can identify flaws or fallacies that you may not notice yourself. Constructive feedback from someone you trust can help you refine your thinking.
Question Your Assumptions: Challenge the assumptions you’re making in your reasoning. Ask yourself, “Is this always true?” or “What evidence do I have to support this belief?” This helps identify if you’re basing your conclusions on faulty logic.
Practice Critical Thinking: Regularly engage in activities that require critical thinking, such as reading, debating, or solving problems. This helps train your mind to spot inconsistencies or errors in logic.
Use Logical Analysis Tools: Apply tools like flowcharts or logic trees to break down your reasoning into smaller steps. This can help you see where your logic might be flawed or where you’re making unwarranted leaps.
Recognize Emotional Triggers: Be mindful of situations where emotions might cloud your judgment. If you find yourself reacting strongly, take a step back and analyze whether your emotions are driving your reasoning into fallacious territory.
Study Logical Arguments: Reading books or taking courses on logic and reasoning can provide deeper insights into how to think logically and recognize when you’re not.
By regularly practicing these steps, you can become more adept at recognizing and correcting logical fallacies in your thinking. This will lead to clearer, more rational decision-making.
One simple approach is to write down a position or argument on paper, leave it alone for a few hours or a day, and then come back to it. See if it still is as compelling as it was before.
Remember
A cognitive bias is a systematic pattern of deviation from rationality in judgment, often unconsciously affecting decisions and perceptions, while a logical fallacy is a flaw in reasoning or argument that leads to an invalid conclusion, typically occurring within a structured debate or discourse.
More Examples
Here are more examples of logical fallacies:
-
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Example: “You can’t trust his opinion on climate change because he’s not a scientist.”
- Straw Man: Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack. Example: “He wants to reduce military spending, so he must think we shouldn’t defend our country.”
- Appeal to Ignorance (Argument from Ignorance): Assuming something is true because it hasn’t been proven false. Example: “No one has proven that ghosts don’t exist, so they must be real.”
- False Dilemma (Black-and-White Thinking): Presenting two options as the only possibilities when more exist. Example: “You’re either with us or against us.”
- Slippery Slope: Arguing that a minor action will lead to major and often ludicrous consequences. Example: “If we allow people to marry the same sex, soon people will want to marry animals.”
- Circular Reasoning (Begging the Question): The argument’s conclusion is assumed in the premise. Example: “I’m trustworthy because I always tell the truth.”
- Hasty Generalization: Making a general statement based on a small or unrepresentative sample. Example: “My friend had a bad experience with a plumber; therefore, all plumbers are incompetent.”
- Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (False Cause): Assuming that because one event followed another, the first caused the second. Example: “I wore my lucky socks, and we won the game, so the socks must be the reason.”
- Red Herring: Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue. Example: “Why worry about the environment when there are homeless people who need help?”
- Appeal to Authority: Asserting a claim is true because an authority or expert says it is, without any other evidence. Example: “This medication must be safe because my doctor said so.”
- Bandwagon (Appeal to Popularity): Arguing something is true or good because it’s popular. Example: “Everyone is switching to this new diet, so it must be effective.”
- Appeal to Emotion: Manipulating an emotional response instead of presenting a logical argument. Example: “Think of the children! We have to ban video games.”
- Tu Quoque (You Too): Dismissing someone’s argument because they are hypocritical. Example: “How can you argue for a healthy diet when you eat junk food?”
- No True Scotsman: Changing the definition of a group to exclude counterexamples. Example: “No true American would criticize the government.”
- False Analogy: Making an inappropriate comparison between two things. Example: “Just like how cars need fuel, humans need coffee to function.”
- Equivocation (Ambiguity Fallacy): Using a word in two different senses in an argument. Example: “The sign said ‘fine for parking here,’ so I thought it was okay to park.”
- Gambler’s Fallacy: Believing that past random events affect future ones. Example: “I’ve flipped heads five times in a row, so the next flip must be tails.”
- Middle Ground: Assuming the middle position between two extremes is always correct. Example: “One side says vaccines cause autism, and the other says they don’t. The truth must be somewhere in the middle.”
- False Equivalence: Drawing a conclusion by falsely asserting that two situations are equivalent. Example: “Calling someone out on social media is just as bad as bullying.”
- Composition Fallacy: Assuming that what is true for the parts is true for the whole. Example: “Each player on this team is talented, so the team must be the best.”
- Division Fallacy: Assuming that what is true for the whole is true for its parts. Example: “The team is excellent, so every player must be excellent too.”
- Appeal to Tradition: Arguing that something is better simply because it’s traditional. Example: “We should keep the monarchy because it’s been part of our history for centuries.”
- Appeal to Nature: Assuming something is good because it’s natural. Example: “Herbal medicine is better than pharmaceuticals because it’s natural.”
- Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing an endeavor due to the resources already invested, despite it being irrational. Example: “I’ve already spent $1,000 on this car; I might as well keep fixing it.”
- Personal Incredulity: Asserting something must be false because you find it difficult to understand. Example: “I can’t understand how evolution works, so it must be wrong.”
- Appeal to Fear (Scare Tactics): Using fear to persuade someone to accept a conclusion. Example: “If we don’t pass this law, our country will be overrun by criminals.”
- Appeal to Pity (Argumentum ad Misericordiam): Using pity to persuade someone to accept a conclusion. Example: “You should hire me because I have a family to support, and I’m struggling to make ends meet.”
- False Consensus: Assuming that your beliefs or opinions are the majority view. Example: “Everyone I know agrees with me, so it must be true.”
- Loaded Question: Asking a question that contains a presumption of guilt or wrongdoing. Example: “When did you stop cheating on your tests?”
- Affirming the Consequent: Assuming that because the consequent is true, the antecedent must also be true. Example: “If it rains, the ground will be wet. The ground is wet, so it must have rained.”
- Denying the Antecedent: Assuming that because the antecedent is false, the consequent must also be false. Example: “If it rains, the ground will be wet. It didn’t rain, so the ground can’t be wet.”
- Appeal to Novelty (Argumentum ad Novitatem): Arguing that something is better because it is new. Example: “This new software must be better because it just came out.”
- Appeal to Antiquity (Argumentum ad Antiquitatem): Arguing that something is better because it is old or traditional. Example: “This remedy has been used for centuries, so it must be effective.”
- Appeal to Wealth (Argumentum ad Crumenam): Assuming that wealth or money equates to correctness or value. Example: “He must be right; after all, he’s rich and successful.”
- Appeal to Poverty (Argumentum ad Lazarum): Assuming that being poor or lacking wealth equates to correctness or moral superiority. Example: “Her argument is more valid because she lives a simple life and isn’t motivated by money.”
- False Authority: Citing an authority in one field as an expert in another unrelated field. Example: “A famous actor says this diet is the best, so it must be true.”
- Fallacy of Composition: Assuming that what is true for a part is true for the whole. Example: “Each member of the team is great, so the team as a whole must be great.”
- Fallacy of Division: Assuming that what is true for the whole is true for the parts. Example: “The team is great, so every member must be great.”
- Reductio ad Absurdum (Reduction to Absurdity): Extending an argument to the point of absurdity to disprove it. Example: “If we allow students to redo their exams, soon they’ll be asking to redo every mistake they make in life.”
- Appeal to Consequences (Argumentum ad Consequentiam): Arguing that a belief is false because it implies undesirable consequences. Example: “If we believe climate change is real, it would mean we have to change our entire way of life, so it can’t be true.”
- Argument from Silence (Argumentum ex Silentio): Drawing a conclusion based on the absence of evidence. Example: “Nobody has ever proven that Bigfoot doesn’t exist, so he must be real.”
- Argument to Moderation (Argumentum ad Temperantiam): Assuming that the middle ground between two extremes is always correct. Example: “Since one side says climate change is a hoax and the other says it’s a crisis, the truth must be somewhere in between.”
- Retrospective Determinism: Arguing that because something happened, it was inevitable. Example: “He failed the test because he wasn’t meant to succeed.”
- Fallacy of the Single Cause (Causal Oversimplification): Attributing an outcome to a single cause when it’s actually the result of multiple factors. Example: “The economy is bad because of the president.”
- False Attribution: Citing a source that is not credible or misrepresenting the source’s expertise. Example: “A study by a group of researchers shows that vaccines are dangerous,” when the researchers are not credible.
- Argument from Ignorance (Appeal to Ignorance): Asserting that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). Example: “No one has proven that aliens don’t exist, so they must be real.”
- Cherry Picking (Suppressing Evidence): Selecting evidence that supports your argument while ignoring evidence that contradicts it. Example: “This study shows that coffee is healthy, so it must be good for everyone,” while ignoring studies that show potential negative effects.
- Base Rate Fallacy: Ignoring statistical information in favor of anecdotal evidence or specific cases. Example: “I don’t need a flu shot because I know someone who got the flu after getting the shot.”
- False Balance: Presenting two sides of an issue as if they are equally valid when one is overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Example: “Some people believe the earth is flat, so we should teach both sides of the debate.”
- Reification (Hypostatization): Treating an abstract concept as if it were a concrete, real thing. Example: “The economy wants us to work harder,” as if the economy has desires or intentions.
There are many many more!
These fallacies do subtly influence our reasoning and lead to faulty conclusions, making it important to recognize and avoid them in everyday thinking and decision-making. Be careful what you believe, especially during an election season!
Please Leave Us Your Comment
Also, tell us of any topics we might have missed.
Thank you for your comment. You may receive an email to follow up. We never share your data with marketers.
Recent Reader Comments
on SCARS Institute West Africa Project with GISF CyberLaw Academy Series for Criminal Justice Professionals at Ghana UENR – 2024: “Awesome news” Sep 18, 16:40
on Scam Victims Use Work To Avoid Healing: “No, your work performance would be significantly reduced. Many scam victims lose their jobs because of this.” Sep 18, 14:55
on Scam Victims Use Work To Avoid Healing: “What about work performance? I have thought about, if I were working, when the scam ended, would my work performance…” Sep 18, 12:24
on Scam Victims Use Work To Avoid Healing: “This article is a great reminder to maintain balance in your life.” Sep 18, 10:00
on The Uniqueness Of Scam Victims Or Fraud Victims – 2024: “I agree with additional training being needed for deputy’s in my town! I asked for a victim liaison to be…” Sep 16, 18:25
Did you find this article useful?
If you did, please help the SCARS Institute to continue helping Scam Victims to become Survivors.
Your gift helps us continue our work and help more scam victims to find the path to recovery!
You can give at donate.AgainstScams.org
Important Information for New Scam Victims
- Please visit www.ScamVictimsSupport.org – a SCARS Website for New Scam Victims & Sextortion Victims
- SCARS Institute now offers a free recovery program at www.SCARSeducation.org
- Please visit www.ScamPsychology.org – to more fully understand the psychological concepts involved in scams and scam victim recovery
If you are looking for local trauma counselors please visit counseling.AgainstScams.org or join SCARS for our counseling/therapy benefit: membership.AgainstScams.org
If you need to speak with someone now, you can dial 988 or find phone numbers for crisis hotlines all around the world here: www.opencounseling.com/suicide-hotlines
A Note About Labeling!
We often use the term ‘scam victim’ in our articles, but this is a convenience to help those searching for information in search engines like Google. It is just a convenience and has no deeper meaning. If you have come through such an experience, YOU are a Survivor! It was not your fault. You are not alone! Axios!
Statement About Victim Blaming
Some of our articles discuss various aspects of victims. This is both about better understanding victims (the science of victimology) and their behaviors and psychology. This helps us to educate victims/survivors about why these crimes happened and to not blame themselves, better develop recovery programs, and to help victims avoid scams in the future. At times this may sound like blaming the victim, but it does not blame scam victims, we are simply explaining the hows and whys of the experience victims have.
These articles, about the Psychology of Scams or Victim Psychology – meaning that all humans have psychological or cognitive characteristics in common that can either be exploited or work against us – help us all to understand the unique challenges victims face before, during, and after scams, fraud, or cybercrimes. These sometimes talk about some of the vulnerabilities the scammers exploit. Victims rarely have control of them or are even aware of them, until something like a scam happens and then they can learn how their mind works and how to overcome these mechanisms.
Articles like these help victims and others understand these processes and how to help prevent them from being exploited again or to help them recover more easily by understanding their post-scam behaviors. Learn more about the Psychology of Scams at www.ScamPsychology.org
SCARS Resources:
- Getting Started: ScamVictimsSupport.org
- FREE enrollment in the SCARS Institute training programs for scam victims SCARSeducation.org
- For New Victims of Relationship Scams newvictim.AgainstScams.org
- Subscribe to SCARS Newsletter newsletter.againstscams.org
- Sign up for SCARS professional support & recovery groups, visit support.AgainstScams.org
- Find competent trauma counselors or therapists, visit counseling.AgainstScams.org
- Become a SCARS Member and get free counseling benefits, visit membership.AgainstScams.org
- Report each and every crime, learn how to at reporting.AgainstScams.org
- Learn more about Scams & Scammers at RomanceScamsNOW.com and ScamsNOW.com
- Learn more about the Psychology of Scams and Scam Victims: ScamPsychology.org
- Self-Help Books for Scam Victims are at shop.AgainstScams.org
- Donate to SCARS and help us help others at donate.AgainstScams.org
- Worldwide Crisis Hotlines: International Suicide Hotlines – OpenCounseling : OpenCounseling
- Campaign To End Scam Victim Blaming – 2024 (scamsnow.com)
Psychology Disclaimer:
All articles about psychology and the human brain on this website are for information & education only
The information provided in this and other SCARS articles are intended for educational and self-help purposes only and should not be construed as a substitute for professional therapy or counseling.
Note about Mindfulness: Mindfulness practices have the potential to create psychological distress for some individuals. Please consult a mental health professional or experienced meditation instructor for guidance should you encounter difficulties.
While any self-help techniques outlined herein may be beneficial for scam victims seeking to recover from their experience and move towards recovery, it is important to consult with a qualified mental health professional before initiating any course of action. Each individual’s experience and needs are unique, and what works for one person may not be suitable for another.
Additionally, any approach may not be appropriate for individuals with certain pre-existing mental health conditions or trauma histories. It is advisable to seek guidance from a licensed therapist or counselor who can provide personalized support, guidance, and treatment tailored to your specific needs.
If you are experiencing significant distress or emotional difficulties related to a scam or other traumatic event, please consult your doctor or mental health provider for appropriate care and support.
If you are in crisis, feeling desperate, or in despair please call 988 or your local crisis hotline.
-/ 30 /-
What do you think about this?
Please share your thoughts in a comment below!
Leave a Reply