RUNNING HEAD : THE OFFENCE PROCESS OF ADULT MALE FIRESETTERS A Descriptive Model of the Offence Chain for Imprisoned Adult Male Firesetters ( DMAF )

Purpose: Firesetting has devastating consequences. Although some theoretical efforts have been made to explain firesetting (i.e., a small number of multiand single-factor theories), little effort has been devoted to understand how deliberate firesetting unfolds across time (i.e., micro or offence chain theories). This research aimed to produce the first descriptive offence chain theory for incarcerated adult male firesetters. Methods: Thirty-eight adult male firesettersをrecruited from prison establishments in England and Walesをwere interviewed about the events, thoughts and feelings leading up to, surrounding, and immediately following a deliberate incident of firesetting. Results: Using Grounded Theory analysis, the Descriptive Model of Adult male Firesetting (DMAF) was developed documenting the cognitive, behavioural, affective and contextual factors leading to a single incident of deliberate firesetting. Conclusions: New information generated from the DMAF is presented and its contributions to the current evidence base are highlighted. Clinical implications, limitations and future research directions are also discussed. THE OFFENCE PROCESS OF ADULT MALE FIRESETTERS 2 Introduction In order to effectively research, assess and treat individuals who set deliberate fires, a good theoretical understanding of firesetting aetiology is important. Ward and Hudson (1998b) suggested theory formation occurs on three levels: multi-factor (Level 1), single-factor (Level 2) and micro-theories (Level 3). Ultimately, the purpose of theory generation at different levels is to develop a global theory of the behaviour in question, explaining its onset, development and maintenance. Unfortunately an evidence-based, all-encompassing theory of firesetting1 is still some way off. Rather, existing research is characterised by the proliferation of typological classifications and a handful of multiand single-factor theories (Gannon & Pina, 2010). )n line with Ward and (udson╆s ゅなひひぱb) framework, three multi-factor Level I theories exist. First, Functional Analysis Theory (Jackson, Glass, & Hope, 1987)を an interaction based modelをviews firesetters as ineffective individuals, unable to satisfy their emotional and social needs through appropriate behaviour. Jackson et al. (1987) identified the factors that direct an individual towards firesetting in particular as previous fire experience (especially when associated with a significant emotional event) and the inhibition of alternative behaviours. Firesetting is triggered by an emotionally significant event (e.g., social rejection or abuse), which leads to a desire to change the situation. A perceived or real inability to effect that change is also considered an important factor in the process (Jackson et al., 1987). Second, Dynamic Behaviour Theory (Fineman, 1980; 1995) outlines the range of variables (historical factors and immediate environmental contingencies) suggested to TエW デWヴマ けaキヴWゲWデデキミェげ ;IIラ┌ミデゲ aラヴ デエW マ;ミ┞ SキaaWヴWミデ デ┞ヮWゲ ラa SWノキHWヴ;デWノ┞ ゲWデ aキヴWゲ デエ;デ マ;┞ ラヴ マ;┞ ミラデ エ;┗W resulted in an arson conviction (Criminal Damages Act, 1971; Dickens & Sugarman, 2012). THE OFFENCE PROCESS OF ADULT MALE FIRESETTERS 3 pre-dispose, reinforce and encourage the occurrence of firesetting. Firesetting is hypothesised to be the result of: historical actions that predispose anti-social actions (e.g., social disadvantage); previous and existing environmental reinforcers associated with firesetting (e.g., childhood firesetting); and instant environmental reinforcers associated with firesetting (e.g., crime scene features). Dynamic-behaviour theory goes beyond Jackson et al┻╆s なひぱば explanation by attempting to define the exact sequence of variables that lead to firesetting. Finally, the Multi-Trajectory Theory of Adult Firesetting (M-TTAF; Gannon, Ó Ciardha, Doley, & Alleyne, 2012), proposes that multiple factors interact to produce firesetting. Developmental factors (e.g., caregiver environment, attachments), biological factors (e.g., brain structure, cognitive functioning), cultural factors (e.g., fire beliefs and attitudes), social learning factors (e.g., fire experiences, social, aggressive and coping scripts) and contextual factors (e.g., life events and other contextual triggers) are hypothesised to contribute to firesetting. As a result, distinct patterns of psychological vulnerabilities develop (i.e., fire interest, offence supportive attitudes, emotional regulation issues, communication problems). Firesetters are conceptualised as belonging to one of five main subtypes or trajectories: anti-social cognition, grievance, fire interest, emotionally expressive/need for recognition, and multifaceted (Gannon et al., 2012). Three main single-factor Level II theories exist (see Gannon & Pina, 2010). First, Psycho-Analytical Theory (Freud, 1932) which suggests firesetting originates from an urethal or oral fixated drive. Second, Biological Theory (Barnett & Spitzer, 1994), which focuses on biological and neurobiological impairment in order to explain firesetting. Third, Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1976; Vreeland & Levin, 1980) which suggests THE OFFENCE PROCESS OF ADULT MALE FIRESETTERS 4 firesetting is a manifestation of reinforcement contingencies and learning through modelling or imitations. Interestingly, there is an almost complete absence of micro-theories (Level III). Micro-theories provide the touchstone for all other theoretical work. Generally associated with quantitative techniques and methodologies, Ward and Hudson (1998a) proposed that multi-factor and single-factor theories explain the ╅why╆ of offending behaviour (i.e., infer causality), which is described qualitatively in micro theories via a temporal sequence to explain the ╅how╆ of offending (e.g. how offending occurs over time). If multiand single-factor theories are unable to account for the offence processes described in micro theories, these then require further development (Ward & Hudson, 1998a). To date, only one known micro theory of firesetting behaviour exists. Tyler et al., (2013) developed an offence chain model for mentally disordered firesetters. The model highlighted the importance of early childhood experiences of fire and the onset of mental illness as precursors to firesetting. Participants╆ firesetting was directly linked to their mental health problems, which appeared to exacerbate pre-existing vulnerabilities/risk factors. Whilst the development of Tyler et al.╆s ゅ2013) model represents a significant milestone in current firesetting theory, it is limited to offenders who were formally diagnosed with a mental health disorder at the time of the fire. Further, reliability checks were not employed in order to ensure strong levels of accuracy, reliability and validity. The lack of micro theories to explain firesetting is hampering future theory development. This further has an impact on clinical practice and the generation of THE OFFENCE PROCESS OF ADULT MALE FIRESETTERS 5 treatment programmes. Thus, the aim of the current research is to develop a descriptive model of the offence chain for imprisoned adult male firesetters.