Adult Deliberate Firesetting. Theresa A. Gannon

firesetting behaviour (Dickens & Sugarman, 2012). Examination of the US NESARC dataset suggested that bipolar and anxiety disorders were more prevalent among people sampled in the community who set fires compared with people with no history of firesetting (Blanco et al., 2010). Compared with a community sample, individuals with convictions for firesetting were found by Ducat et al. (2013b) to have a greater frequency of bipolar, depressive, and anxiety disorder diagnoses. When compared with other individuals receiving a criminal charge, depressive and anxiety disorder diagnoses were still more frequent among people who had set fires, but bipolar diagnoses did not differentiate between the groups. The absolute number of individuals with bipolar disorder diagnoses in any group was relatively small. When Ducat and colleagues (2017) examined the same data to compare women and men who had set fires, they found again that the small number of individuals with bipolar disorder diagnoses did not differentiate men from women, nor did anxiety disorders. However, diagnoses of depressive disorders were significantly more frequent among women in their data. Using a self-report measure of psychopathology, Ó Ciardha et al. (2015a) found that imprisoned men with a history of firesetting reported more traits associated with anxiety, dysthymia, and major depression but not bipolar disorder compared with other men in the criminal justice system. In a related study, it was the presence of bipolar disorder and major depression that appeared to differentiate imprisoned women with a history of firesetting from men who had set fires or other imprisoned women (Alleyne et al., 2016).

      There are caveats to consider when synthesising the available evidence of psychopathology and firesetting. There are very few tightly controlled large sample studies contributing to the knowledge base in this area; exceptions include Anwar et al. (2011), Ducat et al. (2013b), and studies using the NESARC data (Blanco et al., 2010; Hoertel et al., 2011; Vaughn et al., 2010). As a result, much of what we know about the psychopathology of this population is based on small opportunity samples or higher quality studies whose findings may be specific to the jurisdictions sampled. These findings may also be affected by the broader confound of whether people are apprehended or imprisoned for their firesetting. Provisionally, however, it is possible to conclude that the available evidence points to firesetting as a behaviour that is frequently comorbid with mental disorders and mental ill health and that this comorbidity is more pronounced than in other justice-involved individuals. Women who set fires appear to hold higher rates of psychopathology relative to men.

      Psychological Traits

      The findings we have presented so far have focused on developmental trajectories or the presence or absence of diagnosable mental health issues in men and women who set fires. In this section, we explore the psychological traits that have been associated with those who engage in firesetting behaviour. We have used the M-TTAF (Gannon et al., 2012) to arrange these psychological traits into four categories reflecting what Gannon and colleagues consider psychological vulnerabilities—inappropriate fire interest or scripts, offence-supportive attitudes, self- or emotion-regulation issues, and communication problems. We also examine self-esteem, which is conceptualised as a moderator within the M-TTAF in that self-esteem may buffer the individual against the impact of their underlying vulnerabilities on firesetting behaviour (Gannon et al., 2012). It is important to acknowledge that these psychological traits may not be independent of the psychopathological and developmental factors already examined. For example, fire interest is the defining feature of pyromania, and aspects of poor self-regulation may typify people with intellectual disability. This is therefore a different lens with which to view the characteristics of this population, which reflects a different level of analysis to the examination of disorders or development (for a discussion of the examination of offending phenomena at different levels of analysis, see Ward, 2014).

Fire interest and fire scripts. Fire interest refers, predictably, to whether individuals experience a marked or inappropriate interest in fire, fire paraphernalia, or other facets surrounding firesetting behaviour (e.g., interest in the emergency service response to fires). It is a core feature of pyromania but alone is not sufficient for a diagnosis of pyromania (see Ó Ciardha et al., 2017). Unsurprisingly, fire interest is consistently associated with firesetting status. Factor analytic research by Ó Ciardha et al. (2015b) suggested that it may be useful to distinguish between an interest in mundane firesetting (e.g., an ordinary fire in a grate) and more serious firesetting (e.g., a hotel fire). They found that this serious firesetting factor distinguished imprisoned men who had set fires from those who had not (for similar findings in a well-matched subset of these data, see Gannon et al., 2013). Similarly, Alleyne et al. (2016) reported data suggesting that imprisoned women who had set fires had greater serious fire interest than imprisoned women who had not set fires. Two studies by Barrowcliffe and Gannon (2015, 2016) did not distinguish fire interest according to its severity yet reported greater fire interest among un-apprehended individuals admitting firesetting compared with the general population. Tyler et al. (2015) demonstrated greater prevalence of expressed fire interest—as recorded in clinical notes—for individuals in a secure mental health setting who had set fires than those who had not.

      Recently, Gannon et al. (in preparation), developed a comprehensive self-report tool to examine fire-related interests and attitudes. For a more detailed description of the measure, see Chapter 6. Factor analysis of responses from a large community sample, including individuals admitting deliberate firesetting, allowed the authors to parse fire-related attitudes more finely than earlier studies (e.g., Ó Ciardha et al., 2015b). All eight factors extracted from the measure differentiated between people admitting a history of firesetting and those who did not. Factors labelled as identification with fire, fire interest, pathological fire interest, coping using fire, and fascination with fire paraphernalia appear to reflect facets of fire interest. In a second study, Gannon et al.’s (in preparation) findings suggest that it is the coping using fire and identification with fire facets of fire interest that best differentiate between imprisoned men with and without convictions for firesetting.

      Gannon et al. (2012) hypothesised that individuals who set deliberate fires may have developed cognitive scripts that facilitate firesetting (this theory was further developed by Butler & Gannon, 2015). Very little research has empirically tested the scripts of people who have set fires. Using a relatively small sample, Butler and Gannon (2021) found evidence of greater fire-related scripts and expertise among imprisoned men with current or previous firesetting offences compared with community and imprisoned individuals. Interestingly, fire-service personnel were indistinguishable from people who had set fires using Butler and Gannon’s measures of scripts and expertise, and both groups scored similarly on serious fire interest. Gannon et al.’s (in preparation) examination of the structure and correlates of a new measure of fire-related interests and attitudes provides additional evidence regarding firesetting scripts through the identification of coherent factors approximating two of Butler and Gannon (2015) hypothesised scripts: fire is a powerful messenger, and fire is soothing.

Offence-supportive attitudes. Gannon et al. (2012) hypothesised that adults who set deliberate fires would hold attitudes supportive of general offending and/or specific attitudes that would support criminal firesetting. Ó Ciardha and Gannon (2012) expanded on this hypothesis by proposing that people who set fires may have belief systems in the form of implicit theories (see Ward, 2000) that allow them to interact with their social words and process social information in an offence-supportive manner. We know of only one published study that has directly tested these hypotheses. Barrowcliffe et al. (2019) found only partial support for the specific hypotheses of Ó Ciardha and Gannon (2012) with a small sample of un-apprehended individuals (majority female) who had set fires. The findings of Gannon et al. (in preparation) also appear to support the suggestion by Ó Ciardha and Gannon (2012) that the belief that fire is a powerful tool may be characteristic of people who set fires as well as beliefs around how fascinating or exciting fire is.

      Self and emotional regulation. The self- or emotion-regulation factors implicated in adult deliberate firesetting by the authors of the M-TTAF (Gannon et al., 2012) include issues with anger, poor coping or emotional expression, poor problem solving, and impulsivity. As mentioned, these factors may reflect clinical features of certain developmental disabilities or psychopathological