A new conceptual framework for revenge firesetting

Revenge has frequently been acknowledged to account for a relatively large proportion of motives in deliberate firesetting. However, very little is actually known about the aetiology of revenge firesetting. Theoretical approaches to revenge-seeking behaviour are discussed. A brief review of how revenge is accounted for in existing theoretical explanations of deliberate firesetting and the known characteristics of revenge firesetters are provided. On this basis, the authors suggest, as a motive, revenge firesetting has to date been misconceptualised. A new conceptual framework is thus proposed, paying particular attention to the contextual, affective, cognitive, volitional and behavioural factors which may influence and generate a single episode of revenge firesetting. Treatment implications and suggestions for future research are also provided

Male Imprisoned Firesetters Have Different Characteristics than Other Imprisoned Offenders and Require Specialist Treatment

Objective: This study investigated whether a group of firesetters (n = 68) could be distinguished, psychologically, from a matched group of non-firesetting offenders (n = 68). Method: Participants completed measures examining psychological variables relating to fire, emotional/ self-regulation, social competency, self-concept, boredom proneness, and impression management. Official prison records were also examined to record offending history and other offense-related variables. A series of MANOVAs were conducted with conceptually related measures identified as the dependent variables. Follow up discriminant function and clinical cut-off score analyses were also conducted to examine the best discriminating variables for firesetters. Results: Firesetters were clearly distinguishable, statistically, from non-firesetters on three groups of conceptually related measures relating to: fire, emotional/self-regulation, and self-concept. The most successful variables for the discrimination of firesetters determined via statistical and clinical significance testing were higher levels of anger-related cognition, interest in serious fires, and identification with fire and lower levels of perceived fire safety awareness, general self-esteem, and external locus of control. Conclusions: Firesetters appear to be a specialist group of offenders who hold unique psychological characteristics. Firesetters are likely to require specialist treatment to target these psychological needs as opposed to generic offending behavior programs

Psychological Testing by Computer: Effect On Response Bias

Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/66862/2/10.1177_001316447003000403.pd

Comparing the psychological characteristics of unapprehended firesetters and non-firesetters living in the UK

Deliberate firesetting research predominantly focuses on apprehended populations. In contrast, this paper focuses on the prevalence and characteristics of un-apprehended firesetters living in the UK. Social media was utilized to recruit 232 participants for an online questionnaire. Two hundred and twenty-five people answered a question relating to deliberate firesetting. Forty participants (17.78%) indicated that they had ignited a deliberate fire and were classified as un-apprehended firesetters. Firesetting was most common in childhood and adolescence. Relative to non-firesetters, un-apprehended deliberate firesetters were more likely to report; a diagnoses of a psychiatric illness, a diagnosis of a behavioural problem, having been suspended from school, a history of suicide attempts, experimenting with fire before the age of 10 years old, and having a family member who also ignited a deliberate fire. Un-apprehended firesetters also scored significantly higher compared to non-firesetters on the Fire Setting Scale and the Fire Proclivity Scale [Gannon, T. A., & Barrowcliffe, E. R. (2012). Firesetting in the general population: The development and validation of the Fire Setting and Fire Proclivity Scales. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17(1), 105–122], the Fire Interest Rating Scale [Murphy, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (1996). Analysis of motivation in people with mild learning disabilities (mental handicap) who set fires. Psychology, Crime & Law, 2(3), 153–164], the Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory [Novaco, R. W. (2003). The Novaco Anger Scale and Provocation Inventory: NAS-PI. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services], the Boredom Proneness Scale – Short Form [Vodanovich, S. J., Wallace, J. C., & Kass, S. J. (2005). A confirmatory approach to the factor structure of the Boredom Proneness Scale: Evidence for a two-factor short form. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85(3), 295–303], and the Measure of Criminal Attitudes and Associates Scale [Mills, J. F., & Kroner, D. G. (1999). Measures of criminal attitudes and associates: User guide. Unpublished instrument and user guide]