Investigating identity crime and misuse in Australia

The Role of Prevention Technologies and the Likelihood of Victimisation

Bibliographic Data

ID6434804
AuthorsVictoria Berezowski (0000-0002-9267-9932), Kamel Taoum, Joanna Wang (0000-0003-0088-7003), Philip Birch (0000-0001-6517-5897), Claude Roux (0000-0003-3610-420X), Huan Huo (0000-0003-2440-714X)
Year2024
Volume11
Issue1
Pages50-63
Publication date2024-12-19
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueJournal of Criminological Research Policy and Practice (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 2056-385X • E-ISSN: 2056-3841
PublisherEmerald Publishing Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1108/jcrpp-08-2024-0056
OpenAlexW4405583756
LanguageEN
References cited30

Purpose This study examines identity theft as a significant and growing issue in Australia, not only due to its financial impact but also because of the emotional, psychological, and physical harm it causes, making it a public health concern. This study aims to analyse the results of the 2019 Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) survey to identify factors associated with an increased likelihood of identity theft victimisation. Design/methodology/approach This study involved a detailed analysis of the 2019 AIC survey, which had 9,968 respondents from a sample of 10,000. The research focused on whether respondents had ever been victimised by identity theft and analysed various characteristics, including demographics (gender, age, Indigenous status, education), income, computer usage, and preventive technology use, as potential indicators of future victimisation. Univariate analyses (chi-squared test and two-sample t -test) were used to assess individual associations, whereas a multivariate analysis (logistic regression) identified significant predictors of victimisation. Findings The univariate analyses indicated that all sub-variables were individually associated with identity theft victimisation. However, the multivariate analysis revealed that only identifying as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, having an income between $18,201 and $37,000, and using multiple preventive technologies were significant predictors of victimisation. The unexpected finding that increased preventive technology use correlates with a higher risk of victimisation contradicts the survey’s suggestion that victims adopt more careful behaviour post-victimisation. Practical implications The research highlights the need for further investigation into the counterintuitive finding that greater use of preventive technologies may increase the risk of identity theft. Understanding this discrepancy could inform the development of more effective identity theft prevention strategies by the government and related agencies. Originality/value This study contributes to the existing literature by offering a nuanced understanding of the factors associated with identity theft victimisation in Australia that may be applicable globally. The unexpected findings regarding the use of preventive technologies provide a basis for further research and have the potential to influence future policymaking and identity theft prevention efforts

Environmental health · Logistic regression · Multivariate analysis · Multivariate statistics · Poison control · Suicide prevention · Univariate · Victimisation · Clinical Psychology · Cybercrime and Law Enforcement Studies · Hate Speech and Cyberbullying Detection · Medicine · Psychology · Sex work and related issues

Tools

Open DOI