基于扎根理论的贷款注销诈骗全过程心理交互机制
The Whole-Process Psychological Interaction Mechanisms of Loan Cancellation Fraud Based on Grounded Theory
DOI: 10.12677/ap.2026.166321, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 孙瑜浠, 沈 欣:浙江工业大学教育学院,浙江 杭州
关键词: 贷款注销诈骗避损型诈骗扎根理论心理操纵Loan Cancellation Fraud Loss-Avoidance Fraud Grounded Theory Psychological Manipulation
摘要: 当前贷款注销诈骗危害突出,作为典型避损型诈骗,其心理操控机制尚缺乏系统研究。本研究基于141份受害者自述文本,运用扎根理论和文本分析方法,将诈骗过程分为接触与信任构建、控制与资金榨取、诈骗终止与创伤反应三个阶段,梳理欺诈者行为、受骗者心理状态与行为演化规律。研究表明,该类诈骗依托损失厌恶、权威伪装、信息隔离与心理施压实现欺诈,受害者心理由初期怀疑警惕逐步走向认知瓦解,受骗后产生自责、崩溃等负性情绪与心理创伤。本研究厘清了注销贷款诈骗完整演化链条,可为反诈宣传防控与受害者心理干预提供理论参考。
Abstract: Loan cancellation fraud has become increasingly prevalent and harmful at present. As a typical loss-avoidance type of fraud, it still lacks systematic research on its psychological manipulation mechanism. Based on 141 victim self-narrative texts, this study adopts grounded theory and textual analysis to divide the fraud process into three stages: contact and trust establishment, behavioral control and financial exploitation, as well as fraud termination and traumatic reactions. It further summarizes the behavioral patterns of fraudsters and the psychological and behavioral evolution of victims. The results indicate that such fraud is realized through loss aversion, authority disguise, information isolation and psychological pressure. Victims gradually fall from initial suspicion and vigilance to cognitive collapse, and subsequently suffer from negative emotions such as self-blame and breakdown, accompanied by severe psychological trauma. This study clarifies the complete evolutionary chain of loan cancellation fraud, and provides theoretical references for anti-fraud publicity, targeted prevention and psychological intervention for victims.
文章引用:孙瑜浠, 沈欣 (2026). 基于扎根理论的贷款注销诈骗全过程心理交互机制. 心理学进展, 16(6), 331-341. https://doi.org/10.12677/ap.2026.166321

参考文献

[1] Bulatov, A. (2015). The Psychological Mechanisms of Fraud. Legal Psychology, 16, 215-222.
[2] Button, M., Lewis, C., & Tapley, J. (2014). Not a Victimless Crime: The Impact of Fraud on Individual Victims and Their Families. Security Journal, 27, 36-54.[CrossRef
[3] Cai, Y., & Shi, W. (2022). The Influence of the Community Climate on Users’ Knowledge-Sharing Intention: The Social Cognitive Theory Perspective. Behaviour & Information Technology, 41, 307-323.[CrossRef
[4] Chen, H., Zhao, L., Guo, S., & Mo, L. (2023). How Do Telecom Frauds Lead to False Beliefs: Influencing Factors, Explanatory Theories, and Research Prospects. Journal of South China Normal University (Social Science Edition), No. 2, 94-106+207.
[5] Chen, J. (2021). “You Are in Trouble!”: A Discursive Psychological Analysis of Threatening Language in Chinese Cellphone Fraud Interactions. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 34, 1065-1092.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[6] Cialdini, R. B. (1993). The Psychology of Persuasion.
[7] Clark-Gordon, C. V., Bowman, N. D., Goodboy, A. K., & Wright, A. (2019). Anonymity and Online Self-Disclosure: A Meta-Analysis. Communication Reports, 32, 98-111.[CrossRef
[8] Cross, C. (2015). No Laughing Matter: Blaming the Victim of Online Fraud. International Review of Victimology, 21, 187-204.[CrossRef
[9] Cross, C. (2018). Expectations vs Reality: Responding to Online Fraud across the Fraud Justice Network. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 55, 1-12.[CrossRef
[10] Cukier, W. L., Nesselroth, E. J., & Cody, S. (2007). Genre, Narrative and the “Nigerian Letter” in Electronic Mail. In 2007 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS’07) (pp. 70-70). IEEE.[CrossRef
[11] Fischer, P., Lea, S. E. G., & Evans, K. M. (2013). Why Do Individuals Respond to Fraudulent Scam Communications and Lose Money? The Psychological Determinants of Scam Compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 2060-2072.[CrossRef
[12] Fung, M. K. (2015). Cumulative Prospect Theory and Managerial Incentives for Fraudulent Financial Reporting. Contemporary Accounting Research, 32, 55-75.[CrossRef
[13] Ganzini, L., McFarland, B. H., & Cutler, D. (1990). Prevalence of Mental Disorders after Catastrophic Financial Loss. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 178, 680-685.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[14] Heider, F. (1944). Social Perception and Phenomenal Causality. Psychological Review, 51, 358-374.[CrossRef
[15] Ignatova, E. S. (2024). Manipulation of Emotional Security by Cybercriminals Using Social Engineering Technologies: A Case Study. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiâ. Psihologiâ. Sociologiâ, 3, 374-390.[CrossRef
[16] Lee, C. S. (2021). Online Fraud Victimization in China: A Case Study of Baidu Tieba. Victims & Offenders, 16, 343-362.[CrossRef
[17] Liu, X. F., Ai, Y., Jiang, L. C., Wang, X., & Wu, Y. (2025). Understanding the Human Element in Scams: A Multidisciplinary Approach. Journal of Information Technology Case and Application Research, 27, 9-24.[CrossRef
[18] Lwin Tun, Z., & Birks, D. (2023). Supporting Crime Script Analyses of Scams with Natural Language Processing. Crime Science, 12, Article No. 1.[CrossRef
[19] Lyu, C., Gao, S., & Zhang, Q. (2025). The Impact of Time Pressure and Type of Fraud on Susceptibility to Online Fraud. Frontiers in Psychology, 16, Article ID: 1508363.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[20] Norris, G., Brookes, A., & Dowell, D. (2019). The Psychology of Internet Fraud Victimisation: A Systematic Review. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 34, 231-245.[CrossRef
[21] Pietri, M., Mamei, M., & Colajanni, M. (2025). Telecom Spam and Scams in the 5G and Artificial Intelligence Era: Analyzing Economic Implications, Technical Challenges and Global Regulatory Efforts. International Journal of Information Security, 24, Article No. 139.[CrossRef
[22] Potter, W. J., & Levine-Donnerstein, D. (1999). Rethinking Validity and Reliability in Content Analysis. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 27, 258-284.[CrossRef
[23] Schlosser, A. E. (2020). Self-Disclosure versus Self-Presentation on Social Media. Current Opinion in Psychology, 31, 1-6.[CrossRef] [PubMed]
[24] Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss Aversion in Riskless Choice: A Reference-Dependent Model. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039-1061.[CrossRef
[25] Wang, J., Herath, T., Chen, R., Vishwanath, A., & Rao, H. R. (2012). Research Article Phishing Susceptibility: An Investigation into the Processing of a Targeted Spear Phishing Email. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 55, 345-362.[CrossRef
[26] Wang, J., Zhang, L., Xu, L., & Qian, X. (2024). The Dynamic Emotional Experience of Online Fraud Victims during the Process of Being Defrauded: A Text-Based Analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 94, Article ID: 102231.[CrossRef
[27] Workman, M. (2008). Wisecrackers: A Theory‐Grounded Investigation of Phishing and Pretext Social Engineering Threats to Information Security. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59, 662-674.[CrossRef
[28] Xu, L., Wen, X., Wang, J., Li, S., Shi, J., & Qian, X. (2024). Psychological Predictors of Online Fraud Victimhood in China: A Machine Learning Approach. Psychology, Crime & Law, 32, 703-726.[CrossRef
[29] Zhang, Z., & Ye, Z. (2022). The Role of Social-Psychological Factors of Victimity on Victimization of Online Fraud in China. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article ID: 1030670.[CrossRef] [PubMed]