The Psychology of Arson

A Practical Guide to Understanding and Managing Deliberate Firesetters

Rebekah Doley, Geoffrey Dickens, Theresa Gannon, Rebekah Doley, Geoffrey Dickens, Theresa Gannon

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317413714
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Forensic Psychology
• Index: Psychology

The Psychology of Arson is the first book in its field to focus specifically on contemporary topics relevant to practitioners and professionals working with adolescent and adult deliberate firesetters. Rebekah Doley, Geoffrey Dickens and Theresa Gannon have integrated the very latest information regarding prevalence, theory, research and practice in one accessible resource, and provide practical advice, strategies and techniques in a context of evidence-based research which will be invaluable for all treatment providers who work in the field of deliberate fire setting.

Unique features of this book include chapters considering community awareness, strategies, survivors of arson, filicide and suicide by fire, as well as a new treatment model developed on the basis of the latest research in the field. It is divided into four parts:

Theories and typologies of firesetting

Legal, investigative and preventative issues

Assessment and risk assessment of deliberate firesetters

Treatment, needs and management of deliberate firesetters

The Psychology of Arson provides the first scientist-practitioner model for the treatment of arson offenders. It will be an essential resource for forensic psychiatrists, clinical psychologists and other professionals working with this client group.

Part I

Theories and typologies of firesetting

1 Explanations of firesetting

Typologies and theories

Theresa A. Gannon

CENTRE OF RESEARCH AND EDUCATION IN FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF KENT, UK

Key points

• A key factor in the effective assessment and management of offending behaviour is aetiological theory.

• Although theory development in the area of firesetting has been relatively slow over the past two decades, recently there have been key developments.

• A comprehensive theory of firesetting – the Multi-Trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting (M-TTAF; Gannon, Ó Ciardha, Doley & Alleyne, 2012) – has been developed from knitting together the strengths of previous theories.

• The M-TTAF attempts to explain male and female firesetting underpinned by various motivators and outlines five main possible subtypes of firesetter for clinical guidance purposes.

• Two offence chain models of firesetting have also been developed (Barnoux, Gannon & Ó Ciardha, 2015; Tyler, Gannon, Lockerbie, King, Dickens & De Burca, in press) which outline the contextual, behavioural, psychological and contextual factors leading up to and surrounding deliberate firesetting.

• Although theoretical progress is being made, future work needs to focus on validating existing models and studying single factors and mechanisms hypothesised to underpin firesetting.

Introduction

Explaining why individuals set deliberate fires is essential in order to establish how best to manage and treat this behaviour. Numerous factors can be called upon to help explain the fascinatingly complex behaviour of deliberate firesetting (hereafter referred to as ‘firesetting’). Yet surprisingly, compared with other criminal behaviours such as sexual offending, firesetting has received relatively little theoretical attention over the past two decades. In this chapter, the key tenets of an effective and meaningful theory will be outlined. Following this, I will review the key typological and theoretical explanations of firesetting proposed over the years. Finally, I will draw conclusions about the key knowledge gaps that remain in this area and about how clinicians should interpret the current theoretical literature. Unless otherwise stated, the information presented should be assumed to encompass both male and female individuals who set fires.

Meaningful aetiological theory

A key factor underlying the effective assessment and management of offending behaviour is meaningful aetiological theory. Meaningful aetiological theory allows professionals to understand: (1) the vast array of interactive psychological variables associated with offending; and (2) the likely interventions required in order to promote offence desistence (Gannon, Collie, Ward & Thakker, 2008). Ward and his colleagues (e.g., Ward & Hudson, 1998; Ward, Polaschek & Beech, 2005) have enabled successful theory appraisal within the forensic domain by emphasising the level of theoretical focus at one of three levels: single factor (i.e., exclusive focus on one general factor or mechanism and its association with offending), multifactor (i.e., the unification of several single factor theories into one comprehensive theory) and micro focus (i.e., the descriptive focus on more detailed proximate factors involved in the process of offending). Ward et al. (2005) have also highlighted a variety of features (see Hooker, 1987) that they believe should be used in order to appraise the relative value of forensic psychological theory. These key features may be summarised as: empirical credibility (i.e., is the theory evidence based, and does it stand up to empirical scrutiny?), theoretical clarity (i.e., does the theory provide a logical and clear account of underlying variables and mechanisms?), and clinical value (i.e., does the theory add any potential or actual value to clinical assessment and treatment?). In the sections that follow, explanations of firesetting at varying levels of theoretical foci – both historical and contemporary – are described and evaluated according to these three key criteria. The implications of current theoretical knowledge in this area for the management of firesetters are then considered.

Explanations of firesetting

Typologies

Typological classifications of firesetters are not regarded as theories in their own right, but as valuable building blocks for the development of theory (see Gannon & Pina, 2010). Thus, instead of evaluating the empirical credibility, theoretical clarity and clinical value of typological classifications, they will instead be described and evaluated generally in order to provide the context for theories of firesetting. Typically, typologies subdivide firesetters into specific ‘types’ according to perceived motivational factors and/or offence characteristics (e.g., Bradford, 1982; Icove & Estepp, 1987; Inciardi, 1970; Levin, 1976; Lewis & Yarnell, 1951; Prins, 1994; Rix, 1994; Scott, 1974). Such typologies vary in complexity and may range from relatively simple dichotomous typologies to those with numerous categories. For example, Scott (1974) described firesetters as simply motivated or motiveless whereas Inciardi (1970) proposed six categories of individual which included the motivational themes of: revenge, excitement and institutionalisation as well as insurance claim seeking, vandalism and crime concealment. Two key problems, however, are the lack of standardisation of methods employed in typological development, and the focus placed on single, rather than multiple, motivators of firesetting. As a result, it is difficult to make informed comparisons of such typologies or to be confident that they adequately account for the complexity of behaviour. Nevertheless, such typologies have been useful for highlighting the varying array of motivators underlying firesetting (e.g., revenge, vandalism, excitement, cry for help, profit and self harm).

One variant of classificatory systems is that of profiling. Here, professionals draw conclusions about the key characteristics of firesetters using crime scene data (Canter & Fritzon, 1998; Kocsis & Cooksey, 2002; see Fritzon, 2012). For example, using crime scene information such as use of accelerants, presence of suicide notes and apparent target, Canter and Fritzon (1998) described firesetters according to the motivational underpinnings (i.e., either instrumental or expressive) and the target of the firesetting (i.e., either person or object), resulting in four classifications of instrumental-person or object and expressive-person or object. However, although such classifications are useful to investigatory processes, they have not been used to aid the assessment and treatment of firesetters in clinical settings.

Single-factor theories

Three key single-factor theories have been identified in relation to firesetting: psychoanalytical, biological and social learning theory (see Gannon & Pina, 2010). Psychoanalytical theory (Freud, 1932; Gold, 1962) is perhaps the earliest attempt to explain firesetting. From this perspective, firesetting is believed to stem from urethral- or oral-fixated sexual drives. For example, sexual urges and urination are believed to be associated such that: (1) firesetting is hypothesised to reflect repressed sexual urges; and (2) enuresis is hypothesised to represent an attempt to extinguish firesetting occurring in dreams (Barnett & Spitzer, 1994; Gaynor & Hatcher, 1987; Kaufman, Heims & Reiser, 1961; Vreeland & Levin, 1980). A key strength for psychoanalytical explanations of firesetting revolves around theoretical clarity. While psychoanalytical theory provides a relatively clear account of the underlying factors responsible for firesetting (i.e., a fixated sexual drive), it holds some significant problems in relation to empirical credibility since there is no convincing empirical data to support this stance (see Gannon & Pina, 2010). Relatedly, a challenge to the clinical value of this theory is the lack of firesetting cases in which sexual urges are implicated (see Barnett & Spitzer, 1994). Thus, psychoanalytic theory requires more convincing research and clinical evidence if it is to become a more valued theory of firesetting.

Biological theory represents a more recent attempt to explain firesetting and its specific focus has been directed towards the explanation of impulsive or repetitive firesetting acts. The key emphasis rests on neurobiological impairments. For example, using biochemical examinations, Virkkunen, Nuutila, Goodwin and Linnoila (1987) found that firesetters exhibited less 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid and 3-methoxy-4-hydroxyphenylglycol concentrations than approximately matched violent offender and non-offender comparisons.

In addition, Virkkunen, DeJong, Bartko, Goodwin and Linnoila (1989) discovered that firesetters who recidivated over a three-year period (± 18 months) were most likely to hold 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid abnormalities compared to non-recidivist firesetters. Together, these studies suggest that neurotransmitter deficiencies may, in part, explain why some individuals engage in repeated firesetting. In contrast to the psychoanalytic approach, biological theory represents an empirically supported explanation of firesetting, although the clarity of theoretical explanation regarding the exact interplay of factors associated with firesetting requires further elucidation. Nevertheless, for some firesetters, biological explanations of firesetting represent a very promising theoretical avenue in terms of clear assessment and management strategies since, for example, serotonergic drugs could be provided for offenders with problematic 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (i.e., clear clinical potential).

Social learning theory explains firesetting as the manifestation of social learning and reinforcement contingencies (Bandura, 1976; Macht & Mack, 1968; Vreeland & Levin, 1980). For example, Vreeland and Levin (1980) explain that firesetting holds properties that are instantly reinforcing such as the sensory excitement that it elicits. Furthermore, the firesetter may experience other positively reinforcing factors such as admiration from any external observers who mistakenly believe that the firesetter is gallantly raising the alarm or tackling the blaze. Of key importance within the social learning approach is that positive reinforcement is not required to be directly experienced in order for learning to occur; instead learning may occur via observation. This could explain some particularly interesting historical findings such as: (1) firesetters are raised in settings where fire is used more extensively such as countryside environments (Wolford, 1972); and (2) firesetters originate from families who exhibit a history of firesetting (Rice & Harris, 1991).

Although social learning appears to best able to explain firesetting as a result of fire interest, it is also able to account for revenge or anger-related firesetting. For example, social learning theory predicts that self-regulation is formed via environmental reinforcement contingencies. Consequently, exposure to poor developmental role models and negative developmental experiences (e.g., perceived failure) may result in traits of aggression, poor assertiveness and impoverished problem-solving. As Vreeland and Levin (1980) have noted, such characteristics may well increase an individual’s propensity to set fires in an attempt to obtain much needed environmental control. In summary, social learning theory holds relatively good theoretical clarity since the exact links between the environment and firesetting are clearly explicated. This theory also appears to exhibit some empirical support in the form of firesetters’ developmental experiences and basic traits (e.g., Rice & Harris, 1991). In terms of clinical value, social learning theory is extremely appealing since it provides an avenue for understanding both how associations that promote firesetting are learnt and how these associations may be reconfigured – via conditioning principles – within therapy.

Multifactor theories

There are three multifactor theories available to explain firesetting: Functional Analysis Theory (FAT; Jackson, Glass & Hope, 1987), Dynamic-Behavior Theory (DBT; Fineman, 1980, 1995) and the Multi-Trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting (M-TTAF; Gannon, Ó Ciardha, Doley & Alleyne, 2012). FAT represents one of the earliest attempts to explain firesetting. Using the overarching tenets of clinical functional analysis, Jackson et al. (1987) propose that firesetting is facilitated and maintained via an interaction of the antecedents (i.e., previous circumstances/events) and behavioural consequences (i.e., reinforcement contingencies) associated with fire use. An overview of FAT is outlined in Figure 1.1. In short, five main factors are hypothesised to underlie firesetting: (1) psychosocial disadvantage (e.g., poor experiences with caregivers and the associated psychological effects); (2) life dissatisfaction and self-loathing (e.g., depression or poor self-esteem resulting from psychosocial disadvantage); (3) social ineffectiveness (e.g., inadequate conflict resolution skills and rejection from others); (4) factors that determine individual fire experiences (e.g., previous vicarious or direct experiences of fire); and (5) triggers (e.g., affective states or contexts). Reinforcement contingencies are also presented within FAT as playing a fundamental role in facilitating and maintaining firesetting. For example, Jackson et al. (1987) contend that, for socially ineffective children, fire is likely to offer them: (1) power and influence from peers; and (2) increased responsiveness from distracted caregivers such that fire use/interest is positively reinforced. In short, temporary increases in personal effectiveness in combination with positive sensory stimulation serves to further increase fire interest and the chances of fire being used inappropriately in the future.

Negative reinforcement principles are a...