Overview
Although Fessler's position, elucidated in the following quote, dates back to 2006, I argue that it still stands true today: āWe know little about the psychology of fire [and] fire learningā¦ it is high time that we knew moreā (2006, p. 448). Existing psychological research, which is almost solely focussed on the misuse of fire, only tells part of the story, and therefore, the psychological literature base is arguably a little one-sided. That being said, in the past decade, there has been significant progress in the psychological study of firesetting, which has made a substantial contribution to how forensic practitioners work with those convicted of firesetting offences. This progress is outlined below and referred to, in detail, in Chapter 3. First of all, this chapter will consider some of the key challenges in working with, and researching, people who set fires. As a starting point, it is prudent to clarify what terms I will be using in this book.
Terms
Psychological literature addressing the misuse of fire most commonly refers to either arson or firesetting. The former is a legal term (Daykin & Hamilton, 2012), whereas the latter constitutes āall deliberate acts of setting fire that are not recreational in natureā (Gannon & Barrowcliffe, 2012; p. 2). Unhelpfully, these terms are often used interchangeably (Horsley, 2020, 2021). In this book, I will refer to firesetting because this is more encompassing. However, where I am discussing literature which specifically refers to arson or arsonists, I will use the same. There will therefore inevitably be some interchangeability of terms within this book which reflects the nature of the literature to date.
It is important to note in this introductory chapter that I will be arguing for a broader conceptualisation of human interaction with fire. I suggest that the term fire use better encompasses our complex relationship with fire and also reflects the notion that not all fire-related behaviour is reckless and illegal. Some of the challenges involved in the study of firesetting, and indeed, fire use will now be considered.
The challenges
One of the greatest challenges to understanding firesetting is rooted in the elusive and unpredictable nature of fire itself. Brett (2004) alludes to this in saying: āthe initial intent of the firesetter does not always equate to the outcomeā¦it is an adage among firefighters that a big fire is just a small fire that hasnāt been controlledā (p. 419). Fire can be very difficult to control, even for professionals who have access to specialist equipment. In practice, this means that whilst someone who sets a fire might report only having intended to cause minimal damage to a property, the actual damage was much more catastrophic. In other words, their motivation (or, at least, that which they verbalise) does not necessarily equate to the outcome.
Another challenge in seeking to understand firesetting is the lack of research evidence. The work of practitioner psychologists and allied forensic and mental health practitioners should be evidence-based, meaning that we rely on good quality, contemporary research and theory to guide our practice. Problematically, however, the firesetting literature base is relatively sparse when compared to other offence types (Sambrooks and Tyler, 2019). For example, until 2012, there were only two multi-factorial theories of arson, namely the functional analysis model (Jackson, Hope & Glass, 1987) and the dynamic behaviour model (Fineman, 1995). Historically, research in this area is arguably flawed owing to the use of small and/or highly-specialist participant samples (for examples see Hurley & Monahan, 1969; Rice & Harris, 1991; Ritchie & Huff, 1999). The existing forensic psychological literature is considered in more detail in Chapter 3, but it is important to be aware of the notable gaps at this stage.
The relative dearth of firesetting literature means that, currently, there are no existing risk assessment tools specifically designed for people who set fires (Watt & Ong, 2016), nor are there any fully accredited treatment programmes (Palmer et al., 2007; Bell, 2016; Tyler, Gannon, Lockerbie & Ć Ciardha, 2018). In fact, a āone size fits allā approach has generally been adopted with those who set fires (Horsley, 2020, p. 2). In other words, for decades there was an assumption that people who set fires should be dealt with, from an assessment and rehabilitative perspective, using the same approaches employed for other offences (i.e. violence and sexual violence).
Thankfully, this viewpoint is beginning to change (see Tyler et al., 2018) as we learn more about people who set fires and progress is made in empirical research. For example, through research designed to pinpoint a series of predictors for different types of crime, Edwards and Grace conclude that āthe act of arson is different to both violent and non-violent offendingā (2014, p. 226), which suggests that the āone size fits allā approach is potentially insufficient.
Progress
The past decade has seen significant advances in the psychological understanding of firesetting. Researchers at the University of Kent's Centre of Research and Education in Forensic Psychology (CORE-FP) and colleagues have published widely on the topic which has improved what we know about firesetting (for examples, see Gannon et al., 2013; Ć Ciardha et al., 2015; Tyler, Gannon, Dickens & Lockerbie, 2015; Barrowcliffe, Tyler & Gannon, 2019; Butler & Gannon, 2020).
The work of the team at the CORE-FP has been highly influential. It includes the most up-to-date multi-factorial theory of adult firesetting (the multi-trajectory theory of adult firesetting; M-TTAF; Gannon, Ć Ciardha, Doley & Alleyne, 2012). The team is also behind the emergence of work using non-convicted samples (for example, Gannon & Barrowcliffe, 2012; Barrowcliffe & Gannon, 2015, 2016), with the premise being that many people who set fires remain un-apprehended and thus, it makes sense to study particular strands of the general population. Crucially, the work of the CORE-FP has practical application. The team has developed treatment programmes for those who set fires, such as the firesetter intervention programme for prisoners (FIPP; Gannon, 2013; as cited in Gannon et al., 2015) and a version for mentally disordered offenders (FIP-MO; Gannon & Lockerbie, 2011, 2012, 2014; as cited in Tyler et al., 2018), as well as a self-report measure (Ć Ciardha, Tyler & Gannon, 2015).
Whilst this progress is encouraging, it is important to note that treatment programmes such as the FIPP are designed for those who have already committed firesetting crimes or, at least, who are thought to be at particular risk of firesetting. In my view the same attention should be paid to the development and refinement of community-based āearlyā interventions to help young people to form healthy relationships with fire. Currently, fire and rescue services (FRSs) are largely responsible for the delivery of such initiatives but there is little evidence of joined-up thinking on the matter from a national perspective (Foster, 2020a). Additionally, their remit is mostly fire safety education (Foster, 2020a). In my view, this is at best insufficient and at worst inflammatory in that it could be increasing some young people's fascination with fire (returned to in more detail at various points in this book). There is, therefore, much progress still to be made in terms of the prevention of firesetting and a community-wide approach has a large part to play.
As mentioned earlier, the lack of impetus in developing clinical approaches specifically for firesetting until recently undoubtedly stemmed from a limited research base. Research by the CORE-FP team and others has improved the situation but there is still more work to do. Topics which I believe require more attention are elucidated in this book and introduced, briefly, below.
One problem, as we have already seen, is that existing psychological research focusses solely on the misuse of fire (either in the form of firesetting or the criminal offence of arson). I argue that this focus is too narrow and it means the psychology behind a myriad of ostensibly āhealthyā interactions with fire, such as the lighting of candles or enjoying log burners, has been neglected. Furthermore, so far fire-related behaviour has been dichotomised in the literature. More specifically, research participants have typically been categorised as either ānon-firesettersā or āfiresettersā (for examples see Ducat, McEwan & Ogloff, 2013; Gannon & Barrowcliffe, 2012; Barrowcliffe & Gannon, 2015, 2016). This approach is arguably an over-simplification of fire use, which is a very complex and heterogeneous construct. Also, the focus in the empirical literature on the act of setting or lighting fires has its limitations. I have already explained that I favour a broader term - fire use. Not only does this better capture a very diverse range of interactions with fire but it is also emblematic of what, I argue, should be thought of as a process, rather than a single event.
In my opinion there is also a risk of over-simplifying humansā interactions with fire through adopting a uni-disciplinary perspective. One of my core arguments is that we need to understand the human-fire relationship. To do this, we must fully appreciate how our species has come to use and view fire and how this has evolved over time. A historical appreciation of fire use is crucial because this likely forms the basis of how we view and interact with it today. This has support from the work of Presdee (2005) who writes about our complex relationship with fire from a social and historical perspective. In my view, psychology cannot possibly address these matters as a standalone discipline and so I am calling for an interdisciplinary approach. I hope to elucidate in this book that much can be learnt about human-fire use from anthropology and sociology and that drawing on published work from these disciplines, alongside psychology, could enhance our understanding of fire use. In particular, I assert that there needs to be more of an emphasis on the study of how fire is socially constructed. This is a multi-layered concept, comprising a myriad of interrelated factors such as religion, culture, ethnicity, social norms and legislative frameworks to name but a few. The role of fire in the evolution of our species is of central importance here because it has shaped the relationship we have formed with it. It is an exploration of this relationship which is, in my opinion, missing from existing psychological literature and which is the premise of this book.
The following two chapters represent a review of the interdisciplinary literature. Chapter 2 marks the starting point, namely, how our species first came to use fire and why it is so important in our lives today.
