Characteristics Of Firesetters Research Articles

Developmental characteristics of firesetters: Are recidivist offenders distinctive?

IntroductionThis study examined the prevalence of developmental disadvantage and the extent that disadvantage could differentiate between recidivist and one‐time firesetters in an Australian sample of firesetting offenders.MethodsVariables pertaining to developmental experiences were collected from file data held by the Western Australian Department of Corrective Services pertaining to all offenders (n = 354) convicted of a firesetting offence between 2005 and 2010. Analyses of variance were conducted between recidivistic and one‐time firesetters to investigate which developmental factors were related to risk of recidivism.ResultsBased on previous research, it was hypothesized that firesetters would have poor developmental experiences characterized by high rates of abuse, parental absence, early substance use and poor educational achievement. This hypothesis was partly supported. Multiple firesetters were much more likely to be victims of childhood sexual and physical abuse and be diagnosed with a learning disability.DiscussionCurrent theories of firesetting maintain that an impoverished developmental experience catalyses the development of psychological risk factors that precipitate and maintain firesetting behaviour. The high prevalence of developmental risk factors among this population lends evidence to this relationship.ConclusionsThese data suggest that physical and/or sexual abuse, the absence of a mother or father figure through childhood, problematic substance use, poor academic achievement and the presence of speech, learning and reading deficits are common among firesetters generally and the presence of childhood abuse and learning disability is a risk factor for repeat firesetting.

What does the evidence tell us about adults with low intellectual functioning who deliberately set fires? A systematic review

Objective:The purpose of this paper was to systematically examine and integrate existing evidence to determine what is known about deliberate firesetting by adults with low intellectual functioning.Method:A set of specific inclusion and exclusion criteria were defined and a comprehensive search strategy of electronic databases was conducted.Results: Twelve studies met the specified inclusion criteria. Seven studies reported psychosocial characteristics of firesetters and five studies investigated the outcomes of firesetter treatment interventions. Quality assessment indicated the included studies provided low quality research evidence with a high to moderate risk of bias.Conclusions: The existing evidence provides limited understanding of firesetters with low intellectual functioning and it remains unclear whether epidemiological factors, assessment and treatment needs differ to firesetters with average or above intelligence. The extent to which modified assessment and intervention is effective with this group remains uncertain. Further high quality research endeavours are required before robust conclusions about deliberate firesetting by adults with low intellectual functioning can be delineated.

Comparing the characteristics of firesetting and non-firesetting offenders: are firesetters a special case?

This study investigated unique risk factors for firesetting in a population of deliberate firesetters (n = 207) who appeared before courts between 2004 and 2009. It aimed to investigate differences between firesetting and non-firesetting offenders and determine whether offenders with only arson offences (exclusive) differed from those with more versatile (firesetting and other offence types) offending careers. Four-way comparisons were made between non-firesetters, exclusive firesetters, predominant firesetters and mixed firesetters. The demographic, criminological and clinical characteristics of firesetters were compared with a random sample of non-firesetting offenders using information from court files. The findings suggest that deliberate firesetters and other offenders are similar on key characteristics, although firesetters are more likely to be unemployed and to have a greater prevalence of psychiatric disorders. When comparing exclusive firesetters with the other groups, few differences emerged, including the incidence of past firesetting. It was concluded that firesetters are mostly versatile offenders, and this pattern of offending is associated with greater levels of criminogenic need than exists among non-firesetting offenders.

A conceptualization of firesetting in children and adolescents.

Juvenile firesetting has been studied from different perspectives and by multiple disciplines. Although evidence has begun to emerge regarding the antecedents and correlates of firesetting as well as characteristics of firesetters and their families, the findings and their conceptual bases remain somewhat diffuse. This paper integrates major findings reported in the juvenile firesetting literature and provides a tentative model of firesetting risk based on the current evidence. The model highlights several factors within three major domains: learning experiences and cues, personal repertoires, and parent and family influences and stressors. Implications of the model for early identification, diagnosis, and treatment of firesetters are discussed.