This study examined un-apprehended deliberate firesetters’ cognition. Relative to non-firesetters,
un-apprehended firesetters reported higher explicitly measured fire interest. However, their reaction times (RTs) on a fire interest implicit LDT were inconsistent with these findings. They did, however, display a pattern of LDT RTs consistent with Dangerous World and Fire is Powerful beliefs

Barrowcliffe, E.

Gannon, T. A.

Tyler, N.

English

Canterbury Research and Theses Environment

1  Running Head: FIRESETTING COGNITION  This manuscript is a corrected prepublication version of the published article  Brief Communication  Word Count 969  Measuring the Cognition of Firesetting Individuals using Explicit and Implicit Measures Emma R. Barrowcliffe, Theresa A. Gannon, and Nichola Tyler School of Psychology, University of Kent     Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emma Barrowcliffe, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, England. Tel: 01227 827125. E-mail: e.r.barrowcliffe-32@kent.ac.uk  Theresa A. Gannon, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, England. Tel: 01227 824827. E-mail: t.a.gannon@kent.ac.uk Nichola Tyler, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, England. Tel: 01227 824827. E-mail: n.f.tyler@kent.ac.uk The authors received no funding from an external source for undertaking this work.    2  Abstract This study examined un-apprehended deliberate firesetters’ cognition. Relative to non-firesetters, un-apprehended firesetters reported higher explicitly measured fire interest. However, their reaction times (RTs) on a fire interest implicit LDT were inconsistent with these findings. They did, however, display a pattern of LDT RTs consistent with Dangerous World and Fire is Powerful beliefs.                     3  Apprehended (i.e., arrested or convicted) and un-apprehended firesetters report higher levels of fire interest than non-firesetters (Barrowcliffe & Gannon, 2016; Gannon et al., 2013). Yet self-report measures allow participants to fake responses. Researchers have employed implicit measures examining non-conscious processes (e.g., the lexical decision task; LDT). On LDTs, individuals are reliably faster at recognizing a letter sequence as a word when it fits prior expectations of sentence completion (Snowden et al., 2011).    Ó Ciardha and Gannon (2012) hypothesized that firesetters hold any of five firesetting supportive beliefs: Fire is Interesting, Fire is a Powerful Tool, Fire is Controllable, Normalization of Violence, and Dangerous World. Unpublished explicit interview research with apprehended firesetters supports these beliefs (see Reynolds, 2012). However, other research has not yet examined them.   This research investigates fire interest beliefs as a primary aim. We predict un-apprehended firesetters will hold higher fire interest on an explicit self-report measure of fire interest relative to non-firesetters. We also predict that fire interest beliefs will be found using a less transparent LDT.  As a secondary aim, we examine whether the remaining four proposed firesetting supportive beliefs will be found using an implicit LDT.  Method Participants and Measures Eighty-four participants aged 18 to 23 were recruited anonymously via social media (83.3% females).  Measures were presented online and randomized. A screening asked participants whether, since the age of 101, they had ever deliberately set a fire and been apprehended for that fire. The Fire Interest Subscale (FIS) of the Fire Setting Scale (Gannon & Barrowcliffe, 2012) measured explicit fire interest (α = .94). The Impression Management subscale of Paulhus’ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR: 1988) measured impression management (α = .69).                                                           1 In the UK children under 10 cannot receive a criminal conviction. 4  For the LDT, 45 comparable sentence stems were designed for each belief (e.g., fires can be really…) with three comparable word endings for each stem; firesetting belief supportive words (e.g., exciting), non-firesetting belief supportive words (e.g., dangerous), and pronounceable non-words (e.g., emciting). Reading speed was calculated from participants reading 20 randomized sentences (Fischler & Bloom; 1980). Stimuli were presented in black 16pt Arial text on a white screen (see Figure 1a for LDT trial format) programmed in millisecond.com.  Procedure  The study was administered online. Participants completed a practice LDT and repeated this if they made four or more errors. Figure 1a shows the LDT trial format which measured Reaction Time (RT). Individuals who did not engage with the task appropriately were excluded from analyses. Participants were debriefed online. Results We recruited 84 participants (20 unapprehended firesetters, 64 non-firesetters) to ensure we detected medium to large effect with .80 power2. Groups did not differ on age or gender. BIDR-IM was not significantly correlated with FIS or LDT RT outcome variables.  LDT Analyses and Data Preparation We report analyses unadjusted and adjusted for reading speed. Only correct LDT responses were analyzed. RTs were Winsorized3 and totaled for each sentence ending type. Firesetting belief supportive RTs were subtracted from non-firesetting belief supportive RTs (see Figure 1b) with positive figures indicating faster firesetting belief responses.   Primary Aim Un-apprehended firesetters reported higher levels of fire interest relative to non-firesetters, t(82) = 2.12, p <.04; d = .47. For the Fire is Fascinating LDT, un-apprehended firesetters were                                                           2 Using G Power 3 a priori power analysis (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).  3 Excessively high and low RTs were amended to within two standard deviations of the mean.  5  slower classifying Fire is Fascinating belief supportive words, compared to non-firesetters, relative to non-belief supportive words, reading speed unadjusted, t(82) = 2.23, p = .03, d = .53; reading speed adjusted, p = .04, d = .51 (see Figure 1b; primary aim).   Secondary Aim RTs were comparable across groups on Normalization of Violence and Fire is Controllable LDTs (see Figure 1b; secondary aim).  However, for Dangerous World, un-apprehended firesetters were faster to classify firesetting belief supportive words relative to non-belief supportive words, reading speed unadjusted, t(82) = 2.64, p = .01, d = .70; reading speed adjusted, p = .01, d = .67. Further, for Fire is a Powerful Tool beliefs, differences were noted when reading speed was controlled for, reading speed unadjusted, t(82) = 1.80, p = .08, d = .50; reading speed adjusted, p = .04, d = .52. Discussion This is the first study to examine firesetting supportive cognition using explicit and implicit measures. Compared to non-firesetters, un-apprehended firesetters self-reported significantly higher levels of fire interest on the FIS explicit measure. When fire interest beliefs were assessed implicitly groups significantly differed on their mean LDT RT difference by 96.18ms4 and this was in the opposite direction of that hypothesized. Mean RT differences for the remaining firesetting beliefs on the LDT were in the expected direction. The RT difference for the Dangerous World LDT stimuli was significant. The RT difference for the Fire is Powerful stimuli only reached statistical significance when reading speed was adjusted.  Our findings support the growing body of literature showing that un-apprehended firesetters self-report higher levels of fire interest than non-firesetters. Our findings also expand the literature through providing support for Dangerous World beliefs in un-apprehended firesetters. Such beliefs, however, are not sufficient to explain firesetting behavior. We suggest                                                            4 Unadjusted. 6  fire interest is one key facilitatory vulnerability likely to require intervention. Firesetter and non-firesetter differences on Fire is a Powerful Tool LDT stimuli were less clear-cut and require further investigation.   Un-apprehended firesetters were slower completing the Fire is Fascinating LDT stimuli. They may have been distracted by the fire interest related stimuli (see Gallagher-Duffy, MacKay, Duffy, Sullivan-Thomas, and Peterson-Badali, 2009). Researchers could replicate our LDT using eye tracking equipment to assess length and location of eye gaze. 7                           Primary Aim              Secondary Aim  Figure 1a. Illustration of the LDT trial format. Figure 1b. Mean unadjusted RT differences on the LDT for the five beliefs that support firesetting.  Note: Positive scores indicate faster responses to beliefs that support firesetting. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.   -200-150-100-50050100150200FIRE IS FASCINATINGNORMALISATION OF VIOLENCEDANGEROUS WORLDFIRE IS POWERFUL FIRE IS CONTROLLABLEMean RT Difference Firesetters Non FiresettersBlank  Screen  Screen Sentence Stem Blank  Letter String 500ms 2500ms 500ms Decision Key Press*  RT Recorded  * ‘Q’ for Words/’P’ for Non-Words  Letter String Trial Format 8  References Barrowcliffe, E. R., & Gannon, T. A. (2016). Comparing the psychological characteristics  of un-apprehended firesetters and non-firesetters living in the UK. Psychology,  Crime and Law, 22, 382-404. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1111365 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146 Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1980). Rapid processing of the meaning of sentences. Memory  & Cognition, 8, 216-225. doi:10.3758/bf03197609 Gallagher-Duffy, J., MacKay, S., Duffy, J., Sullivan-Thomas, M., & Peterson-Badali, M.  (2009). The pictorial fire Stroop: A measure of processing bias for fire-related stimuli.  Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1165-1176.   doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9339-8 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, 105-122. doi:10.1348/135532510X523203 Gannon, T. A., Ó Ciardha, C., Barnoux, M. F. L., Tyler, N., Mozova, K., & Alleyne, E. K. A. (2013). Male imprisoned firesetters have different characteristics than other imprisoned offenders and require specialist treatment. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 76, 349-364. doi:10.1521/psyc.2013.76.4.349 Ó Ciardha, C., & Gannon, T. A. (2012). The implicit theories of firesetters: A preliminary  conceptualization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 122–128.  doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.12.001 Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self deception and impression management in self reports:  The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual, University of  British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Reynolds, K. (2012). Implicit theories of firesetters. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Canterbury Christchurch University, UK.  Snowden, R. J., Craig, R. L., & Gray, N. S. (2011). Indirect behavioral measures of cognition  among sex offenders. The Journal of Sex Research, 48, 192-217.  doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.557750  

Measuring the cognition of firesetting individuals using explicit and implicit measures

This study examined un-apprehended deliberate firesetters’ cognition. Relative to non-firesetters, un-apprehended firesetters reported higher explicitly measured fire interest. However, their reaction times (RTs) on a fire interest implicit LDT were inconsistent with these findings. They did, however, display a pattern of LDT RTs consistent with Dangerous World and Fire is Powerful beliefs

Barrowcliffe, Emma

Gannon, Theresa A.

Tyler, Nichola

Kent Academic Repository

Kent Academic RepositoryFull text document (pdf)Copyright & reuseContent in the Kent Academic Repository is made available for research purposes. Unless otherwise stated allcontent is protected by copyright and in the absence of an open licence (eg Creative Commons), permissions for further reuse of content should be sought from the publisher, author or other copyright holder. Versions of researchThe version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.EnquiriesFor any further enquiries regarding the licence status of this document, please contact: researchsupport@kent.ac.ukIf you believe this document infringes copyright then please contact the KAR admin team with the take-down information provided at http://kar.kent.ac.uk/contact.htmlCitation for published versionBarrowcliffe, Emma and Gannon, Theresa A. and Tyler, Nichola  (2019) Measuring the Cognitionof Firesetting Individuals using Explicit and Implicit Measures.   Psychiatry: Interpersonal andBiological Processes .       (In press)DOILink to record in KARhttps://kar.kent.ac.uk/74172/Document VersionAuthor's Accepted Manuscript1  Running Head: FIRESETTING COGNITION  This manuscript is a corrected prepublication version of the published article  Brief Communication  Word Count 969  Measuring the Cognition of Firesetting Individuals using Explicit and Implicit Measures Emma R. Barrowcliffe, Theresa A. Gannon, and Nichola Tyler School of Psychology, University of Kent     Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Emma Barrowcliffe, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, England. Tel: 01227 827125. E-mail: e.r.barrowcliffe-32@kent.ac.uk  Theresa A. Gannon, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, England. Tel: 01227 824827. E-mail: t.a.gannon@kent.ac.uk Nichola Tyler, Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology, School of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury, Kent, CT2 7NP, England. Tel: 01227 824827. E-mail: n.f.tyler@kent.ac.uk The authors received no funding from an external source for undertaking this work.    2  Abstract This study examined un-apprehended deliberate firesetters’ cognition. Relative to non-firesetters, un-apprehended firesetters reported higher explicitly measured fire interest. However, their reaction times (RTs) on a fire interest implicit LDT were inconsistent with these findings. They did, however, display a pattern of LDT RTs consistent with Dangerous World and Fire is Powerful beliefs.                     3  Apprehended (i.e., arrested or convicted) and un-apprehended firesetters report higher levels of fire interest than non-firesetters (Barrowcliffe & Gannon, 2016; Gannon et al., 2013). Yet self-report measures allow participants to fake responses. Researchers have employed implicit measures examining non-conscious processes (e.g., the lexical decision task; LDT). On LDTs, individuals are reliably faster at recognizing a letter sequence as a word when it fits prior expectations of sentence completion (Snowden et al., 2011).    Ó Ciardha and Gannon (2012) hypothesized that firesetters hold any of five firesetting supportive beliefs: Fire is Interesting, Fire is a Powerful Tool, Fire is Controllable, Normalization of Violence, and Dangerous World. Unpublished explicit interview research with apprehended firesetters supports these beliefs (see Reynolds, 2012). However, other research has not yet examined them.   This research investigates fire interest beliefs as a primary aim. We predict un-apprehended firesetters will hold higher fire interest on an explicit self-report measure of fire interest relative to non-firesetters. We also predict that fire interest beliefs will be found using a less transparent LDT.  As a secondary aim, we examine whether the remaining four proposed firesetting supportive beliefs will be found using an implicit LDT.  Method Participants and Measures Eighty-four participants aged 18 to 23 were recruited anonymously via social media (83.3% females).  Measures were presented online and randomized. A screening asked participants whether, since the age of 101, they had ever deliberately set a fire and been apprehended for that fire. The Fire Interest Subscale (FIS) of the Fire Setting Scale (Gannon & Barrowcliffe, 2012) measured explicit fire interest (α = .94). The Impression Management subscale of Paulhus’ Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR: 1988) measured impression management (α = .69).                                                           1 In the UK children under 10 cannot receive a criminal conviction. 4  For the LDT, 45 comparable sentence stems were designed for each belief (e.g., fires can be really…) with three comparable word endings for each stem; firesetting belief supportive words (e.g., exciting), non-firesetting belief supportive words (e.g., dangerous), and pronounceable non-words (e.g., emciting). Reading speed was calculated from participants reading 20 randomized sentences (Fischler & Bloom; 1980). Stimuli were presented in black 16pt Arial text on a white screen (see Figure 1a for LDT trial format) programmed in millisecond.com.  Procedure  The study was administered online. Participants completed a practice LDT and repeated this if they made four or more errors. Figure 1a shows the LDT trial format which measured Reaction Time (RT). Individuals who did not engage with the task appropriately were excluded from analyses. Participants were debriefed online. Results We recruited 84 participants (20 unapprehended firesetters, 64 non-firesetters) to ensure we detected medium to large effect with .80 power2. Groups did not differ on age or gender. BIDR-IM was not significantly correlated with FIS or LDT RT outcome variables.  LDT Analyses and Data Preparation We report analyses unadjusted and adjusted for reading speed. Only correct LDT responses were analyzed. RTs were Winsorized3 and totaled for each sentence ending type. Firesetting belief supportive RTs were subtracted from non-firesetting belief supportive RTs (see Figure 1b) with positive figures indicating faster firesetting belief responses.   Primary Aim Un-apprehended firesetters reported higher levels of fire interest relative to non-firesetters, t(82) = 2.12, p <.04; d = .47. For the Fire is Fascinating LDT, un-apprehended firesetters were                                                           2 Using G Power 3 a priori power analysis (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).  3 Excessively high and low RTs were amended to within two standard deviations of the mean.  5  slower classifying Fire is Fascinating belief supportive words, compared to non-firesetters, relative to non-belief supportive words, reading speed unadjusted, t(82) = 2.23, p = .03, d = .53; reading speed adjusted, p = .04, d = .51 (see Figure 1b; primary aim).   Secondary Aim RTs were comparable across groups on Normalization of Violence and Fire is Controllable LDTs (see Figure 1b; secondary aim).  However, for Dangerous World, un-apprehended firesetters were faster to classify firesetting belief supportive words relative to non-belief supportive words, reading speed unadjusted, t(82) = 2.64, p = .01, d = .70; reading speed adjusted, p = .01, d = .67. Further, for Fire is a Powerful Tool beliefs, differences were noted when reading speed was controlled for, reading speed unadjusted, t(82) = 1.80, p = .08, d = .50; reading speed adjusted, p = .04, d = .52. Discussion This is the first study to examine firesetting supportive cognition using explicit and implicit measures. Compared to non-firesetters, un-apprehended firesetters self-reported significantly higher levels of fire interest on the FIS explicit measure. When fire interest beliefs were assessed implicitly groups significantly differed on their mean LDT RT difference by 96.18ms4 and this was in the opposite direction of that hypothesized. Mean RT differences for the remaining firesetting beliefs on the LDT were in the expected direction. The RT difference for the Dangerous World LDT stimuli was significant. The RT difference for the Fire is Powerful stimuli only reached statistical significance when reading speed was adjusted.  Our findings support the growing body of literature showing that un-apprehended firesetters self-report higher levels of fire interest than non-firesetters. Our findings also expand the literature through providing support for Dangerous World beliefs in un-apprehended firesetters. Such beliefs, however, are not sufficient to explain firesetting behavior. We suggest                                                            4 Unadjusted. 6  fire interest is one key facilitatory vulnerability likely to require intervention. Firesetter and non-firesetter differences on Fire is a Powerful Tool LDT stimuli were less clear-cut and require further investigation.   Un-apprehended firesetters were slower completing the Fire is Fascinating LDT stimuli. They may have been distracted by the fire interest related stimuli (see Gallagher-Duffy, MacKay, Duffy, Sullivan-Thomas, and Peterson-Badali, 2009). Researchers could replicate our LDT using eye tracking equipment to assess length and location of eye gaze. 7                           Primary Aim              Secondary Aim  Figure 1a. Illustration of the LDT trial format. Figure 1b. Mean unadjusted RT differences on the LDT for the five beliefs that support firesetting.  Note: Positive scores indicate faster responses to beliefs that support firesetting. Error bars represent standard error of the mean.   -200-150-100-50050100150200FIRE IS FASCINATINGNORMALISATION OF VIOLENCEDANGEROUS WORLDFIRE IS POWERFUL FIRE IS CONTROLLABLEMean RT Difference Firesetters Non FiresettersBlank  Screen  Screen Sentence Stem Blank  Letter String 500ms 2500ms 500ms Decision Key Press*  RT Recorded  * ‘Q’ for Words/’P’ for Non-Words  Letter String Trial Format 8  References Barrowcliffe, E. R., & Gannon, T. A. (2016). Comparing the psychological characteristics  of un-apprehended firesetters and non-firesetters living in the UK. Psychology,  Crime and Law, 22, 382-404. doi: 10.1080/1068316X.2015.1111365 Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175-191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146 Fischler, I., & Bloom, P. A. (1980). Rapid processing of the meaning of sentences. Memory  & Cognition, 8, 216-225. doi:10.3758/bf03197609 Gallagher-Duffy, J., MacKay, S., Duffy, J., Sullivan-Thomas, M., & Peterson-Badali, M.  (2009). The pictorial fire Stroop: A measure of processing bias for fire-related stimuli.  Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37, 1165-1176.   doi:10.1007/s10802-009-9339-8 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, 105-122. doi:10.1348/135532510X523203 Gannon, T. A., Ó Ciardha, C., Barnoux, M. F. L., Tyler, N., Mozova, K., & Alleyne, E. K. A. (2013). Male imprisoned firesetters have different characteristics than other imprisoned offenders and require specialist treatment. Psychiatry: Interpersonal and Biological Processes, 76, 349-364. doi:10.1521/psyc.2013.76.4.349 Ó Ciardha, C., & Gannon, T. A. (2012). The implicit theories of ﬁresetters: A preliminary  conceptualization. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 122–128.  doi:10.1016/j.avb.2011.12.001 Paulhus, D. L. (1988). Assessing self deception and impression management in self reports:  The Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Unpublished manual, University of  British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. Reynolds, K. (2012). Implicit theories of firesetters. (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Canterbury Christchurch University, UK.  Snowden, R. J., Craig, R. L., & Gray, N. S. (2011). Indirect behavioral measures of cognition  among sex offenders. The Journal of Sex Research, 48, 192-217.  doi:10.1080/00224499.2011.557750  

Measuring the Cognition of Firesetting Individuals using Explicit and Implicit Measures

https://repository.canterbury.ac.uk/download/2adb8981d27bfbd7db9525550663cd0728e2aa63efa884a0e89a1f706151989c/541541/Barrowcliffe%2C%20Gannon%2C%20%26%20Tyler%20LDT%20pre-proof%20%281%29_removed.pdf

Measuring the cognition of firesetting individuals using explicit and implicit measures

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Canterbury Research and Theses Environment

Kent Academic Repository