Adult Deliberate Firesetting. Theresa A. Gannon

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ 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 psychopathology that supports the use of fire as a coping strategy and/or problem-solving method. This conceptualisation has been captured in the latest theories (see Chapter 3) and has significant implications for assessment (see Chapter 4) and treatment (see Chapters 6 and 7).

      Sexual Offending Literature as a Guiding Framework

      Given the paucity of the adult firesetting literature pre-2010, researchers turned to more established literatures (i.e., sexual offending) to inform the research agenda moving forward. However, although early theorising suggested a relationship between firesetting and sexual dysfunction, little available evidence substantiates this link as a major explanatory factor for adult firesetting (Ó Ciardha, 2015). Research on sexual offending has nonetheless been influential in developing knowledge relating to firesetting. This is likely the result of the longstanding recognition of sexual offending—particularly child sexual abuse—as a public health problem in need of sustained research to develop knowledge for prevention and treatment. As a result, the burgeoning field of research on deliberate adult firesetting has been able to draw on practices and concepts from the more established field of research on sexual offending.

A key influence of the field of sexual offending on firesetting research has been work by Tony Ward and various collaborators. The Multi-Trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting (M-TTAF; Gannon et al., 2012) is an example of theorising in firesetting that draws inspiration from work, including that of Ward and Beech (2006), Ward and Hudson (1998), and Ward et al. (2006), on how to effectively develop, appraise, and knit together theories in sexual offending. Models of the offence process (micro theories) of firesetting behaviour (e.g., Barnoux et al., 2015; Tyler et al., 2014) also used methods applied by Ward et al. (1995) to the investigation of the offence process of people who sexually offend against children. Furthermore, Ward hypothesised that implicit theories (Ward, 2000; Ward & Keenan, 1999) and offence scripts (Ward & Hudson, 2000) form part of an explanatory framework for the offence-supportive belief systems of people who commit sexual offences. These concepts have been highly influential in theory development (e.g., Butler & Gannon, 2015; Ó Ciardha & Gannon, 2012; see Chapter 3) and empirical research (e.g., Barrowcliffe et al., 2019; Butler & Gannon, 2021) on firesetting behaviour.

      Changes and developments in the treatment of sexual offending over the past number of decades have also influenced current practice in the treatment of firesetting. For example, those interested in best practice with people who have sexually offended have been confronted with questions around dealing with clients who deny or minimise their offending. Similarly practice regarding treatment of sexual offending has had to navigate whether treatment ethos is most effective using a risk-based or a strengths-based approach. Building from the evidence base around what works for sexual offending has allowed contemporary intervention programmes for people who have been apprehended for firesetting (see СКАЧАТЬ