Adult Deliberate Firesetting. Theresa A. Gannon

Office (2016) on the number of arson incidents recorded by police in 2015 suggest that there were 37 reported arson incidents per 100,000 inhabitants. Data reported by Ketola and Kokki (2018) suggest that Finnish rescue services recorded approximately 20 deliberate fires per 100,000 residents.

      Smith et al. (2014) used data from four Australian states to estimate the number of recorded victims of arson in Australia in 2011. Based on the figures calculated by Smith et al. (2014), we estimate that there were approximately 67 victims of arson for every 100,000 inhabitants in Australia at this time. These figures are broadly consistent with the annual rate per hundred thousand of arson offences recorded in one Australian state (Victoria) spanning 2011–2016, which ranged from 57 to 74 per 100,000 inhabitants (Crime Statistics Agency Victoria, n.d.). However, Smith et al. (2014) also estimated, based on Mayhew (2003), that there are two unreported arson victims for every case reported to the police, suggesting that the annual prevalence of arson victimisation in Australia may be as high as 200 per 100,000. Thus, it would be sensible to assume a similar under-reporting of arson in the other jurisdictions where rates are available.

      We caution against comparing these figures cross-nationally because the methods of data collection vary considerably across jurisdictions. However, we consider it reasonable to estimate that the annual prevalence of deliberate firesetting serious enough to be reported to police or demand attention from fire services in the countries discussed may be in the range of 40–200 incidents per 100,000 inhabitants, when taking under-reporting into account (Mayhew, 2003; Smith et al., 2014). It remains an open question whether variability in these figures across countries reflects true cross-national differences in the rate of firesetting or is an artefact of differences in reporting and/or investigation practices between countries.

      An alternative to examining rates of deliberate firesetting recorded in agency records is to use self-reported firesetting as an indicator of prevalence. To date, the most robust self-report study to ask about self-reported deliberate firesetting was the US National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (Blanco et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2010). This dataset, representative of the US population, included whether participants answered yes to the question “In your entire life, did you ever start a fire on purpose to destroy someone else’s property or just to see it burn?” Using this broad—but property-focused—definition, approximately 1% of participants reported to have a lifetime prevalence of deliberate firesetting (Blanco et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2010).

      As clinicians, one of the first questions asked is how prevalent is this offending behaviour? This helps to understand whether the behaviour requires resources invested to address it. The definitional and measurement issues presented thus far demonstrate that the research evidence needs to be interpreted with care and needs to be framed within the context of the criteria for which data are collected and recorded.

      Adult Firesetting as a Neglected Topic of Research

Research examining the psychological factors underpinning firesetting behaviour and treatment for firesetting has undergone a sea change in the past decade or so. Prior to this, research on adult firesetting appeared occasionally in the literature and had relatively minimal impact. However, since the publication of a review of the state of the literature by Gannon and Pina in 2010, there have been year-on-year increases in the number of outputs on firesetting, which have impacted on the wider psychological and criminological literature. Even older papers (e.g., Inciardi, 1970; Jackson et al., 1987) have seen notable increases in rates of citation in the past decade as a new generation of researchers revisits these canonical sources. It appears that sustained research from a number of research teams (especially in the UK and Australia) from 2010 onwards resulted in a critical mass for the topic. This critical mass was likely brought about by researchers and research funders recognising that adult firesetting reflects a major public health and criminal justice concern with a large human and financial cost.

      The neglect of adult firesetting as a research topic likely stems from an interaction of factors. First, research on firesetting has historically focused on firesetting behaviour in children and adolescents. We will explore the reasons for this and the contribution of this literature to the understanding of adult firesetting. Second, it appears that there was a general belief that firesetting could be explained by either mental disorder (i.e., pyromania) or by general criminality (e.g., people setting fires to claim insurance or destroy evidence). Given that diagnoses of pyromania are exceptionally rare, there may have been a belief that firesetting behaviour was mostly addressable through general criminal offending programs. Readers of this book will see that the evidence base now suggests that many individuals who set fires have unique characteristics (see Chapter 2) requiring tailored risk assessments (see Chapter 4), and crucially, would benefit from interventions designed to target their distinct treatment needs (see Chapters 6 and 7).

      Key Developments in the Childhood Firesetting Literature

      The firesetting literature has had an asymmetrical focus on children who set fires despite evidence that only half of fires are set by children (Cassel & Bernstein, 2007). There are likely to be a number of reasons for this asymmetry, including (1) a lack of awareness of the prevalence or seriousness of adult firesetting, (2) an assumption that firesetting was a fire safety and thus educational challenge, and (3) a belief that childhood firesetting may be indicative of serious and violent offending in adulthood (e.g., the “MacDonald triad”). Based on interviews with 100 residents in a psychiatric facility, MacDonald (1963) concluded that the presence of (1) enuresis (beyond 5 years of age), (2) animal cruelty, and (3) firesetting during their childhoods, taken together, was a prognostic indicator of future violence (operationalised as “threats to kill”). The clinically appealing nature of this study for diagnostic and risk assessment purposes appears to have resulted in its wide-spread and continued application (Barrow et al., 2014). This is despite MacDonald’s findings never being replicated. Instead, the evidence suggests that the presence of either animal cruelty or firesetting during childhood is more indicative of dysfunctional and abusive childhoods (i.e., environments that normalise violent behaviour) rather than violent behaviour itself (Parfitt & Alleyne, 2020).

      There has since been a shift away from focussing on the firesetting–violence link towards developing the understanding of the more proximal causes of firesetting behaviour. Root et al. (2008) explain that juvenile firesetting may be the outcome of child abuse and its resulting affective and behavioural difficulties. The DSM-5 views firesetting behaviour as a feature of conduct disorder in children. That is, deliberately setting fires to destroy property (note animal cruelty as well) is a diagnostic criterion for conduct disorder—“a repetitive and persistent pattern of behaviour in which the basic rights of others … are violated” (APA, 2013).

The child literature has also offered some insight into the dynamic risk factors associated with firesetting behaviour. For example, as a result of neglectful parenting styles (Slavkin, 2000) as well as the previously mentioned abusive household environments, children and adolescents who set fires develop impoverished and unsophisticated interpersonal social abilities. These abilities form the basis of their dysfunctional attachment styles (Räsänen et al., 1996). These relational issues have since been captured in the adult literature. Most notably, adults (in particular men) who set fires exhibit signs of loneliness with limited and/or unhelpful social support networks (Rice & Harris, 2008). Maladaptive attachment styles are associated with offending more broadly (e.g., Ross & Pfäfflin, 2007; Ward et al., 1996), and their role in reinforcing offending behaviour makes them highly suitable targets for treatment in adults.

      In sum, this literature tells us that childhood firesetting points to maladaptive and dysfunctional childhood environments conducive of offending behaviour. But more important, it appears that a history of firesetting behaviour during childhood may be a risk factor for future firesetting in adulthood (Ducat et al., 2015). Therefore, the firesetting behaviour itself is indicative of a developmental