.png)
Lessons for Citizen Investigators: What the Psychology of Scams Really Teaches Us
- Steve Conley
- Jan 28
- 4 min read
Why understanding harm matters more than spotting tricks.
In 2009, the Office of Fair Trading commissioned a major piece of research into the psychology of scams. It was rigorous, humane, and ahead of its time.
It also quietly disappeared.
Not because it was wrong — but because it was inconvenient.
For anyone involved in Get SAFE or learning to become a citizen investigator, this paper contains lessons that are still being ignored by the very systems meant to protect people.
This article pulls out those lessons — not as academic theory, but as practical guidance for people seeking truth, accountability, and recovery.
[Download the article here:]
1. Scams Don’t Just Steal Money — They Damage Identity
One of the most important findings of the study was this:
Scams cause psychological as well as financial harm. Victims often suffer a loss of self‑esteem and blame themselves for being ‘stupid’. Some are seriously damaged by the experience.
Lesson for citizen investigators:
When investigating harm — whether your own or someone else’s — never assume the damage is only financial.
Shame, silence, withdrawal, and self‑blame are part of the harm. If you ignore them, you misunderstand the case.
Practical takeaway:
Treat emotional fallout as evidence, not weakness.
Document behavioural changes after the event.
Recognise that silence is often a trauma response, not consent or complicity.
2. “How Could Anyone Fall for That?” Is the Wrong Question
The study made a clear finding: falling for a scam is an error of judgement, not a sign of low intelligence or greed.
Victims were often:
Capable professionals
Experienced investors
People with more background knowledge than average
Ironically, confidence and familiarity sometimes increased vulnerability.
Lesson for citizen investigators:
Never frame an investigation around personal failure.
The correct question is:
What psychological conditions were created that made a bad decision more likely?
Practical takeaway:
Focus on context, not character.
Look for pressure, authority cues, urgency, emotional triggers, and isolation.
Assume the system — not the individual — is where accountability usually sits.
3. Victims Often Knew “Something Was Wrong” — And Acted Anyway
One of the most uncomfortable findings was this:
Many victims suspected something was wrong — but proceeded regardless.
Not because they were foolish, but because:
The potential reward dwarfed the perceived risk
The loss felt small “just to try”
The emotional need (hope, relief, validation) overrode logic
This is known as phantom fixation — when attention locks onto the imagined outcome.
Lesson for citizen investigators:
Early doubt does not invalidate harm.
Systems often weaponise this ambiguity later to deny redress.
Practical takeaway:
Document early concerns alongside inducements.
Don’t let institutions reframe doubt as informed consent.
Understand that “long‑odds gambles” are often psychologically engineered.
4. Repeat Victimisation Is Predictable — and Preventable
The study identified a critical group:
Between 10–20% of the population are significantly more persuadable and at higher risk of repeat targeting.
This isn’t because they are reckless — but because they are:
More open
More trusting
More emotionally responsive
Lesson for citizen investigators:
Repeat harm is a system failure, not a personal flaw.
Lists are shared. Patterns are exploited. Vulnerability is mined.
Practical takeaway:
Track prior incidents as part of the evidence trail.
Recognise repeat contact as predictable exploitation.
Push back hard on narratives that frame repeat victims as irresponsible.
5. Education Alone Doesn’t Work — Structure Matters
Perhaps the most damning conclusion was this:
Despite decades of research, scams continue — because the system cycles through:
Research → Report → Applause → Ignore → Repeat
Public awareness campaigns help some people. They fail the most vulnerable.
Lesson for citizen investigators:
Do not rely on official narratives of “lessons learned”.
If the structure hasn’t changed, the harm will repeat.
Practical takeaway:
Ask what changed procedurally, not rhetorically.
Look for accountability gaps after reports are published.
Treat vanished reports as red flags, not footnotes.
6. Why This Matters for Get SAFE
Get SAFE exists precisely because this research was not acted on.
Our work starts where institutions stop:
Stabilising people after harm
Restoring clarity and agency
Helping individuals organise evidence without shame
Citizen investigation is not about blame. It’s about re‑establishing reality after psychological disruption.
Final Thought: Truth Begins with Dignity
This 2009 study told the truth.
Victims were harmed — deeply. Systems knew — early. And little structurally changed.
Citizen investigators don’t need more warnings. They need language, structure, and permission to trust their experience.
That’s where real protection begins.
If You’d Like to Help This Work Continue
Get SAFE exists because people choose to stand quietly alongside those facing financial harm.
There is no pressure to give.There is no “target thermometer.”There is no guilt-based appeal.
But if this story resonates with you — and you believe no one should have to face financial trauma alone — your support helps keep this work available to the next person who reaches out in panic, confusion, or despair.
Every £50 provides a bursary for one person to access:
• Trauma-informed recovery support
• Guided self-advocacy tools
• Evidence-structuring templates
• Life-stabilisation planning
• Fellowship peer support
• Secure testimony preservation
That support can mean the difference between someone breaking down in isolation — and someone finding clarity, steadiness, and dignity again.
If you’d like to contribute, you can do so here:
[Scan for the Support Get SAFE on Crowdfunder]
Whether you give, share, or simply hold this work in goodwill — thank you for being part of a more humane response to financial harm.
Comments