This article was downloaded by: [Bond University]On: 07 June 2015, At: 20:55Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Psychiatry, Psychology and LawPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppl20

Looking at the Characteristics of AdultArsonists from a Narrative PerspectiveKatarina Fritzon a , Heather Lewis b & Rebekah Doley aa Psychology Department, Humanities and Social Sciences , BondUniversity , Queensland , Australiab University of Surrey , UKPublished online: 03 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Katarina Fritzon , Heather Lewis & Rebekah Doley (2011) Looking at theCharacteristics of Adult Arsonists from a Narrative Perspective, Psychiatry, Psychology and Law,18:3, 424-438, DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2011.585255

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2011.585255

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists from a Narrative

Perspective

Katarina Fritzona, Heather Lewisb and Rebekah Doleya

aPsychology Department, Humanities and Social Sciences, Bond University, Queensland Australia;bUniversity of Surrey, UK

This article reviews literature on the characteristics of adult arsonists as well as clinicaland theoretical perspectives on explaining the psychology of adult fire-setting. A modelof fire-setting is presented that addresses the functions of the behaviour, following ageneral discussion of other approaches to classifying arsonists, emphasising empiricallyderived classifications. Finally, a possible explanatory framework is provided in theform of a narrative theory account of fire-setting, with case examples presented toillustrate the main themes that emerge in the role that the arsonists assign to themselvesas the main character in their own life story. The review concludes by presentingpractical implications of the model, especially focusing on the utility of providing a two-tiered treatment model, combining group treatment with individual treatment,addressing the role that arson may play in identity formation and integration.

Key words: fire-setting; characteristics; narrative; life-story.

Is there such a thing as an ‘arsonist perso-nality’? Are people who set fires differentfrom those who do not? Embedded withinthese questions are two important issues.The first is the notion of consistency orversatility within criminal behaviour. Theother is whether there is something funda-mental to an arsonist that sets them apartfrom non-arsonists. Research that hasaddressed these issues has tended to adoptone of three approaches. The first isdescriptive and is generally drawn fromclinical or incarcerated populations, some-times with a control group and sometimeswithout, the purpose being to describe thecharacteristics of the arsonists within thesepopulations. The second attempts to delvefurther into the notion of ‘an arsonist’

by classifying different forms of thisbehaviour, and encompasses motivationaltypologies as well as behavioural classifica-tions. Thirdly, and more recently, anattempt to understand the function of thearson behaviour has occurred, with a viewto developing effective interventions toreplace the behaviour with a more sociallyacceptable way of resolving problems.

The present discussion focuses primar-ily on the first two of these approaches, andsummarises the findings that are relevant toanswering the question of what or who ‘thearsonist’ is. It concludes with a fourthperspective which attempts to provide atheoretical integration of existing knowl-edge about arson, adopting a narrativeapproach to explain consistencies between

Correspondence: Katarina Fritzon, Department of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Sciences,Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland 4229, Australia. Email: kfritzon@bond.edu.au

Psychiatry, Psychology and LawVol. 18, No. 3, August 2011, 424–438

ISSN 1321-8719 print/ISSN 1934-1687 online

� 2011 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law

DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2011.585255

http://www.informaworld.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

the ways that arsonists describe their lifestories and the role of their own arsonbehaviour. In this way the question be-comes not whether people who commitarson are different from other criminals ornon-arsonists, but whether particular nar-rative constructions are associated withparticular forms of arson.

Clinical Descriptions of Arsonists

Dating back to the nineteenth century, fora long while there was agreement amongpsychiatrists that arson was an offencecommitted mainly by adolescent femaleswho had problems with puberty or men-struation (Esquirol, 1845; Ray, 1871; citedin Geller, 1992a). This was supportedmainly by clinical anecdotes appearing inmedical texts. One of the earliest reportswas by a medical practitioner in 1837 whowrote of a young female patient who,sexually aroused and ‘overheated’ from adance, returned to her house and set fire toher room. The French physician Marc isregarded as the first person to introduce theterm ‘pyromania’ as a mental disorder. Atthat time it was simply defined as anirresistible impulse to set fires and anyonewho fitted that description was regarded aslegally ‘insane’. People were frequentlydiagnosed as pyromaniacs based on thesingle clinical criterion of repeatedly settingfires. The most recent edition of theDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Men-tal Disorders, (American Psychiatric As-sociation, 1994) defines pyromania asrepeated deliberate and purposeful fire-setting associated with tension or affectivearousal before the act, followed by intensepleasure or relief when setting the fires,witnessing or participating in its aftermath.DSM-IV TR (American Psychiatric Asso-ciation, 2000) lists several behaviouraltraits that characterise the pyromaniac,such as making elaborate preparationsbefore starting a fire, being a regularobserver at fires, setting off false alarms,

and showing interest in fire-fighting para-phernalia. Onset is usually in childhoodand may continue through adolescenceinto adulthood.

Thus whilst it has been suggested thatthe term ‘pyromania’ has no psychiatricmeaning and is merely a catch-all term‘used by lazy psychiatrists’ (Robbins &Robbins, 1967), its use nevertheless persistsand continues to have an impact onmodern psychiatric treatment of fire-set-ters. However, in fact, pyromania is thediagnosis least frequently used for fire-setters, as they are more likely to be viewedby mental health practitioners as sufferingfrom either a conduct disorder (in chil-dren), an antisocial personality disorder,schizophrenia, mental retardation, organicpsychosis or a mood disorder (Barnett &Spitzer, 1994).

As previously stated, fire-setting beha-viour in adults has generally been addressedfrom a psychiatric perspective and hasfocused on the identification of clinicalfeatures which are commonly found forthis group of individuals. Like studiesfocusing on child fire-setters, research hasshown that the family histories of adultarsonists were characterised by distur-bances of some kind. For example, Hurleyand Monahan (1969) found that fire-settersreported high incidences of early parentalseparation (20%), illegitimacy (16%), deathof close relatives (24%) and being adoptedor brought up in children’s homes (28%).However, none of these results differedsignificantly from a control group of non-arsonist offenders. What did differentiatethem was their high level of relationshipand other social problems. Fifty-four per-cent reported sexual maladjustments, 62%reported difficulties in relationships withthe opposite sex; of those that had married,two-thirds were divorced.

This suggestion that arsonists experi-ence particular social and relationshipproblems has also been picked up by laterstudies. For example, Harris and Rice

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 425

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

(1984) found that fire-setters were lessassertive than other patients in situationsrequiring the verbal expression of negativefeelings, and they described themselves andwere described by others as more shy andwithdrawn. Based on this, Harris and Ricehypothesised that assertion deficits andsocial isolation play a large contributingrole in the aetiology of fire-setting beha-viour. This was supported by a later studyby the same researchers (Rice & Harris,1991) using a much larger sample of 243male fire-setters. Comparing these indivi-duals with 100 other patients in the samehospital, they found that fire-setters weremore socially isolated (as indicated byvariables such as hobbies, marital status,living arrangements, etc.), less likely to bephysically aggressive, less intelligent,younger, less physically attractive and hadmore extensive psychiatric histories thanother mentally disordered offenders. Multi-ple discriminant analysis further indicatedthat the fire-setters were more likely tohave suffered childhood abuse, their fa-milies were more likely to have reportedunusual interest in fire, the number of suchfire-related misbehaviours as false firealarms was higher, and they were signifi-cantly less likely to have previous non-fireand violent charges.

In summary then, these results wereconsistent with the hypothesis that fire-setters are more socially isolated, less likelyto be physically aggressive, and have moreextensive psychiatric histories than othermentally disordered offenders. Together,the earlier results of Harris and Rice (1984)and the later study (Rice & Harris, 1991)lend considerable support to the idea thatsocial skills in general and assertiveness inparticular represent important clinicalcharacteristics of fire-setters.

Environmental Characteristics of Arson

In the late 1960s and early 1970s in theBronx area of New York, there was a

sudden increase in the number of buildingfires attributable to arson. The area hadbecome a run-down ghetto, services werepoor and unemployment and crime high.The multi-racial population were crammedwithin neglected timber framed apartmentbuildings and legitimate options for re-housing were limited. However, somelocals realised that whenever a fire occurredwithin such buildings, the tenants whoseapartments were affected were automati-cally re-housed by the council in a betterenvironment, often outside the Bronx.Having discovered this, many tenantsapparently began deliberately starting firesin order to be moved out. Such was theirresolve they would at times violentlyfrustrate fire-fighters’ attempts to extin-guish the fires. To date, there have not beenany outbreaks of such magnitude in theUnited Kingdom. However, fire servicesreports indicate that there are occasionalsimilarities to such motives for arson onsome local authority estates and homelesshostels. One could argue that those personsare making a protest against the disadvan-taged economic and social position inwhich they see themselves. Hence, arsoncan have a socio-economic rationale forimpoverished individuals.

This aspect of arson has been examinedby a number of studies bringing anenvironmental psychological perspectiveto the study of arson. A study by Pettiway(1987), for instance, examined the relation-ship between demographic variables (age,race and sex) along with environmentalcharacteristics of the offender’s residence,and the motivation for arson. This studydifferentiated between arson which wasretaliatory (revenge) in motivation andthat which was non-retaliatory (e.g. play-ing with matches, crime concealment).

The results for age and race showed areversal of the pattern for retaliation forwhites and blacks in different age cate-gories. For white offenders the youngestage group (below 18) were most likely to

426 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

use arson as a means of retaliation,whereas non-whites were more likely tocommit retaliatory arson if they were over18 years of age. Pettiway suggested thatthe explanation was related to the demo-graphic and structural characteristics ofthe offenders’ place of residence. Indivi-duals residing in ‘type 6’ neighbourhoods,so-called ‘natural areas’ for crime, weremore likely to commit retaliatory arson.These areas consist of predominantlyblack female-headed households, a largeproportion of separated males and di-vorced females, living in single-unit de-tached properties, often with inadequatekitchen and bathroom facilities. Pettiwayfound that those individuals who are mostlikely to retaliate are more often residentsof type 6 environments than those who donot commit retaliatory arson. This studysuggests, therefore, that environment is amore important determinant of the like-lihood of committing arson for revenge,than are characteristics such as age andrace. Whilst it may be controversial tosuggest that individuals in lower socio-economic strata may be more likely to useaggressive non-verbal means of retaliationbecause of lack of persuasive skills, thisstudy can be seen to provide generalsupport for the communicative aspect offire-setting.

So far, this article has outlined thevarious factors associated with fire-setting,ranging from environmental and socialfactors such as poor parenting and poverty,to individual psychological characteristicssuch as mental illness and lack of socialskills. These amount to explanations forfire-setting. However, viewed in isolation,they appear to be incomplete theories thatapply to different forms of the behaviour.For example, the types of fire-settingbehaviour studied by Kafry (1978, 1980)primarily concerned ‘experimental’ matchplay by children which involved setting fireto small household items. In contrast, otherresearch has focused on arson committed

by individuals housed in psychiatric insti-tutions and special hospitals (e.g. Harris &Rice, 1984; Jackson, Glass, & Hope, 1987).These authors are very often dealing withprolonged pathological fire-setting byadults where both the nature of the beha-viour and its consequences – in terms ofextensive destruction of property andpotential loss of life – are much moreserious.

In order to be of real value, anyexplanation of arson must take into ac-count variations in fire-setting behaviour,offering alternative explanations for eachcategory. It has been more than twodecades since Vreeland and Waller (1978)wrote: ‘‘The lack of an adequate system ofclassification is a major contributory factorto our lack of understanding of fire-settingbehaviour.’’ The following section de-scribes the current situation with regardto developing a meaningful and validclassification system for arson.

Differentiating Arsonists

There have been several attempts to createtypologies of arsonists, most of which arebased on classifications of motive (e.g.Inciardi, 1970; Prins, 1994; Vreeland &Waller, 1978). This reliance on uncoveringthe motives for fire-setting as the basis of aclassification system suffers from seriousproblems of validity and reliability. AsDurkheim (1897) warned: human intentionis too intimate a thing to be more thanapproximately interpreted by another per-son. More recently, Geller (1992a) alsocriticised motivational classifications onthe grounds that they focus on possibleexplanations for the fire-setting behaviour,rather than describing variations in thebehaviour itself.

The variety of explanations for arsonthat exist within the literature drawsattention to the possibility that sub-sets ofarsonists exist for whom different explana-tions may be relevant. Therefore, in order

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 427

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

for an explanatory framework to takeaccount of all the many different forms ofarson, it seems necessary to regard the actof arson itself not as a single phenomenon,but as a range of behaviours that are eachassociated with different motivational pro-cesses and offender characteristics.

Clearly, beyond the act of setting a fireitself, there is a potentially unlimited rangeof behaviours that might be associated withthe crime of arson. In order to reduce thesedisparate acts to homogeneous classes ofbehaviour, it is necessary to develop aclassification system which meaningfullydifferentiates between styles of committingarson. This is the aim of a classificationsystem, namely to reduce phenomena bygeneralising beyond the particular andunique to facilitate more systematic ob-servations (Clinard & Quinney, 1973).

One early behavioural classification ofarson which adopted an empirical ap-proach was conducted by Pisani (1982)based on 138 randomly selected cases ofpersons arrested for arson in New YorkCity. Using cluster analysis, the studyidentified five empirically distinct sub-groups, each with different behaviouralemphases. The largest group (53%) wasdescribed as using fire as a weapon forrevenge. These fires were usually set atnight in occupied buildings and werestarted by flammable liquid. These arso-nists often threatened to set fires beforedoing so and usually had not set firespreviously. Three other sub-groups of fire-setters with instrumental motives – insur-ance and welfare fraud as well as crimeconcealment – together made up a total of16% of the arson arrests. Vandal fire-setters comprised 12% of the sample.These individuals rarely used accelerantsin setting fire and usually set fire to onlyone spot at the scene. Another group withsimilar offence characteristics to the van-dals were called ‘pyros’ by Pisani and madeup 10% of the sample. The difference withthis group was that they were said to derive

emotional relief or sexual gratificationfrom the fires. A final 9% of the samplewere made up of a group whom Pisanicalled ‘psychos’ and who usually had someform of psychiatric history and set fire tooccupied buildings, frequently their ownapartments. These fires were set by taking amatch to bedding and did not usuallyinvolve accelerants.

A more recent study by Harris and Rice(1996) also employed cluster analysis toclassify mentally disordered arsonists intofour subtypes of fire-setters. These fourgroups were called ‘psychotics’, ‘unasser-tives’, ‘multi-fire-setters’ and ‘criminals’.The first of these groups made up a thirdof the sample for the study. Compared tothe rates of mental illness cited by previousresearch (e.g. Bradford, 1982), this seemshigh, but, as noted, the sample was definedby being mentally disordered. These in-dividuals were usually diagnosed as schizo-phrenic and had set few fires in their lives,nor had they a history of criminal oraggressive behaviour. They were less likelythan members of other clusters to haveused accelerants and their rate of recidi-vism was not particularly high for anyfurther violent, non-violent and fire-settingoffences.

The next largest group (28%) werecalled ‘unassertives’. These did not tendto have a history of aggression, or criminalactivity, were more intelligent, and hadbetter employment histories. They were theleast assertive of all the four types and weremost likely to set fires out of anger or adesire for revenge. The ‘multi-fire-setters’accounted for 23% of the total sample.This group had the worst childhoodhistories and had high levels of aggression.Although they had little criminal historygenerally, they had previously set manyfires. They were least intelligent and weremost likely to have been institutionalised aschildren, and they had parents with psy-chiatric problems. They also were veryunassertive, but were least likely to have

428 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

been diagnosed as schizophrenic. In termsof the characteristics of their fires, theywere most likely to have set fire toinstitutions and to have confessed. Theywere also most likely to commit theiroffences during the day and had a highrate of recidivism for all crime types.

Finally, the smallest sub-group were the‘criminals’, making up 16% of the sample.These individuals had extensive criminalhistories and poor childhood backgroundsmarked by abusive parents. They weremost likely to have been diagnosed aspersonality disordered. In terms of the firesthey set, they were least likely to haveknown the victim of the fire, were mostlikely to set fire at night-time and were leastlikely to report the fire or confess. Theseoffenders were the most assertive and weremost likely to commit further fire andviolent offences when released.

Harris and Rice (1996) also attemptedto develop a typology of the characteristicsof the fires themselves, and to relate this tothe four sub-groups of offender. However,the only association which they identifiedwas that more serious fires were set byyounger offenders with more extensivehistories of fire-setting. One possible reasonfor this failure of the identification of moresubstantial links between offence andoffender characteristics is the absence of atheoretical framework underpinning thestudy. Without such a basis to guidehypotheses about expected differences inthe characteristics of the fires set by each ofthe four groups of arsonists, it would bedifficult to know what aspects of the fires toinclude in the analysis. Similarly, the labelsgiven to describe the sub-groups werederived in an ad hoc fashion and reflectedconcepts from a number of differentdomains, for example, psychiatry andpersonality psychology. It was not clearwhy ‘psychotics’, for example, could notalso be ‘multi-fire-setters’ since one refersto a mental state and the other to abehaviour.

In an attempt to overcome theseproblems, work by one of the presentauthors (Fritzon) has developed a modelof fire-setting which is derived from sys-temic theories relating to behavioural ac-tion systems (Canter & Fritzon, 1998;Fritzon, Canter, & Wilton, 2001). Thismodel has subsequently been tested on anumber of different data sets (Fritzon &Brun, 2005; Miller & Fritzon, 2007) andalso has achieved external validity in casestudy applications (Santtila, Hakkanen, &Fritzon, 2003).

The model classifies arson according toits target and the motivational categoryunderlying the act. The targets weredifferentiated in terms of whether theywere objects (e.g. business premises,schools, institutions) or specific peoplewho were significant to the arsonist. Themotivational distinction was in terms ofwhether an obvious instrumental outcomewas desired (e.g. revenge or crime conceal-ment) or whether the act was expressive interms of drawing attention to some under-lying emotional distress. A combination ofthese two facets gave rise to four distinctmodes of arson, each with correspondingoffender characteristics. The first, labelledAdaptive combines an external motiva-tional source with an external target anddescribes fire-setting directed at opportu-nistic objects, often in the context ofanother crime being committed. The offen-ders responsible tend to be juveniles actingin groups and to be known to authorities.The Conservative mode refers to arsonwhich is directed at an external source,usually another person with whom thearsonist has had a relationship and in thecontext of a perceived wrong doing. Theobjective is to change the internal state ofthe arsonist and this is achieved throughsetting a multiple seated fire often invol-ving accelerants and the destruction ofproperty and endangering of lives. Theperpetrator is usually an individual knownto the victim, and the relationship

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 429

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

characterised by a history of disturbedinteractions, including prior threats ofviolence or fire.

The third form, labelled integrative isone where the arsonist sets fire to their ownhome, or occasionally, himself or herself, inan attempt to draw attention to emotionaldistress. The individual responsible is oftenpsychiatrically disturbed. A higher propor-tion of females set fires within this mode ofaction. Finally, the expressive mode com-bines an internal source with an externaltarget for the arson, and can be comparedto Geller’s (1992b) description of commu-nicative arson which seeks to draw atten-tion to an individual who may feel unableto achieve goals in a more direct manner.These cases often are serial as the indivi-dual learns that fire is an effective means ofexpression. The targets for this form of fire-setting may be public buildings whichattract significant vicarious attentionthrough crowds and large numbers of fireappliances. The individual responsible of-ten has personality disturbances and ahistory of fire-related behaviour.

What the action systems frameworkadds to previous classifications of arsonistsis a way in which the behaviour andcharacteristics of arsonists can be under-stood within one unified model. Such amodel reflects an individual’s characteristicway of functioning in the world. In thesame way that the Canter and Fritzon(1998) model showed that prior, seeminglycontradictory, classifications could be un-derstood as referring to different forms ofarson, the Fritzon et al. (2001) study tookthis one step further, arguing that theaction systems framework describes differ-ent forms of behaviour that an individualmay engage in, of which arson is just oneexample.

Life Story Model of Fire-Setting

An explanation for these emerging styles ofoffending behaviour has yet to surface

within arson literature. However, a theore-tical framework which seems promising issuggested by Canter (1994) who draws onthe work of McAdams (1988, 2000, 2001)on the role of Life Story Narratives.

McAdams argues that stories appear tobe a fundamental means of expressing ourworld and ourselves – for example, whenindividuals relate to each other, the con-versation they engage in can be construedas storytelling in one form or another. Inparticular, McAdams (1988, 2001) pro-poses that adults create meaning andpurpose in their lives through the construc-tion of an internalised and evolving lifestory. This inner narrative is continuallyauthored and revised over time and in turnprovides a framework that guides theindividual’s behaviour. Life stories areproposed to be psychosocial constructions,a combination of the cultural and socialcontext within which individuals live. It isin the construction and meaning they drawfrom their experiences that provides theconsistency and stability in how the personperceives themselves and the role theyoccupy within the world. The modelconsists of six story elements that togetherprovide a framework that reflects the wayan individual constructs meaningful coher-ence to their experiences. These elementsare the thematic lines (power and inti-macy), imagoes (idealised images of an-other person, such as a parent, acquired inchildhood and carried in the unconsciousin later life) or characters within thenarrative, the ideological setting and nar-rative complexity and finally the nuclearepisodes and generativity script that struc-ture the story.

In applying the model to criminalbehaviour, Canter (1994) draws particularattention to the imagoes and thematiclines. He suggests that it may be thebreakdown in the individual’s ability toachieve Power and Intimacy through legit-imate means which is responsible for thatindividual resorting to criminal behaviour.

430 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

These central themes of Power and In-timacy, or Agency and Communion asdescribed by other personality psycholo-gists (Wiggins & Broughton, 1985), arereflected in the instrumental and expressivemotivational categories applied in the fire-setting model developed by Canter andFritzon (1998), as well as in other modelsof criminal behaviour (Cornell et al., 1996;Salfati & Canter, 1999). One possiblelimitation of this model in specific relationto arsonists is that if adult arsonists areoften cognitively limited, than their lifestories and metacognition would likely notbe that strong, limiting the strength ofpsychosocial constructions. To the extentthat reflection and insight are necessarycomponents of narrative construction, theMcAdams model may lack applicability tosome sub-groups of arsonists who do notpossess the cognitive ability to constructcoherent self-narratives (Slavkin, personalcommunication, 17 July 2004).

The focus of an unpublished PhD thesis(Lewis, 2004) was on understanding howthe construction of Imagoes within the lifestory may be reflected in particular beha-vioural styles of fire-setting. In otherwords, this study sought to expand onprevious work testing the relationshipsbetween the ways in which individualscommit crimes and other aspects of theirpersonality and characteristics. Imagoesare recurrent behaviours representationalof an individual that dominate the life storyand are conscious and unconscious ideali-sations of the self reflected in patterns ofthought and behaviour (McAdams, 1988).Imagoes reflect a person’s desires and goalsas well as traits and recurrent behaviours,vocalising individual and cultural valuesand signifying fundamental life conflicts.Canter (1994) suggests that narrative con-struction may be influential not only in thedrive to commit a crime, but also in thestyle and choice of behaviours they applyto their offence. Maruna (1997) has alsoshown how the formation of a pro-social

alternative narrative is crucial in theprocess of desistance from criminalbehaviour.

The Lewis study was a qualitative anal-ysis of 10 life story interviews conductedwith individuals convicted of arson andincarcerated within UK prisons. This studyexperiences the same limitations as most ofthe literature on this population since anincarcerated sample has been examined.Nevertheless, while this is a limitation forgeneralisability, results do support theglobal notions of the theory (Slavkin,personal communication, 17 July 2004).The following excerpts from the life storyinterviews are presented to illustrate coher-ence between the imago constructions andfire-setting style of four individuals repre-sentative of the categories identified byCanter and Fritzon (1998) and Fritzonet al. (2001). The case studies also can beused to suggest the different treatment needsthat may be appropriate for individualsoperating within each of the four overallmodes of functioning. Certainly, recentreviews of adult arson treatment considera-tions (Dolan et al., this edition; Gannon &Pina, 2010) suggest that the currentlypopular model of providing group-basedinterventions may not be targeting all of theunderlying functions that fire-setting serveson an individual level.

Case Study 1: Expressive

Robb1 is a 40-year old convicted ofreckless arson for fires set in a block offlats where he was employed as a securityguard. He denies the offence and wasconvicted on what he describes as circum-stantial evidence.

Robb recounts a number of key epi-sodes in his life, from which it is possible tocapture a recurring theme of his coming tothe aid of others, such as in the followingexcerpts describing his intervention whenhis sister’s children were threatened, andhis handling of a break-in at his home:

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 431

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

. . . So I had my machete in my arm andsays to hell with it . . . I’m not havinganyone hurt any kids . . . when there’s akid involved, I won’t have nobody harm akid . . . I have been a victim of burglarymyself . . . I confronted the burglar and atthe end of the day the way I look at it,what would have happened if my kids hadgot up and disturbed the person, my kidscould have got injured, so obviously I’mgoing to protect them . . .

The imago that emerges from Robb’slife story, then, is that of the Crusader, oneof a class of characters personified alongthe thematic lines of agency and commu-nion. According to McAdams (1988),imagoes that combine themes of powerand intimacy personify figures who areconcerned with the welfare of others andrelate to actions that benefit both the selfand those around them. In this context, theCrusader is a heroic character, coming tothe aid of others, and showing great levelsof courage in the face of adversity.

In respect of his offence, featuresconsistent with the Crusader imago areapparent in the details of his actions at thetime of the fire. Although Robb deniessetting the fire, his recall of the incidentdescribes him to the rescue of thosetrapped by the fire with little thought forhis own safety:

. . . when they [fire brigade] came, I wascarrying the kids and all that, while theygot the ladders and I was carrying them[children] to the ambulance to get checkedover and that. Now as I was doing thatthere were things exploding all about us, Iwas taking my life in danger to help, I hadno protection stuff only my security jacketwhich is no much protection . . .

The features of this fire are consistentwith what is often described in the litera-ture as ‘vanity’ fire-setting by individualswho are obsessed with their own prestigeand how they think others perceive them.The fire he set appears to fulfil a personalneed for recognition rather than to ventanger and is common among arsonists who

lack a sense of self worth. This also isconsistent with the description of expres-sive arson by Fritzon et al. (2001), in whichthe emotional needs of the individual arecommunicated externally in what might bedescribed as an attention-seeking act.Characteristic of this form of arson is thesituation where the arsonist him/herself‘discovers’ the fire and calls for assistance.With respect to his denial of responsibilityfor the fire, this is not surprising given thenature of Robb’s narrative, as this wouldinvalidate the sense of prestige and selfsatisfaction gained from his assistance withthe fire rescue. A cautionary note must beadded, however, as it was not possible toverify the nature of the evidence uponwhich he was convicted, and whether thistherefore was a sound conviction.

Assuming, however, that Robb wasindeed responsible for the fire, and certainlythere are undisputed accounts of indivi-duals who have set fires in similar circum-stances, what would be the treatmentimplications for cases such as that ofRobb? As discussed in Miller & Fritzon,2007), the expressive function of fire-settingappears to be a powerful reinforcer, and yetis not explicitly tackled within currenttreatment models which emphasise askills-based cognitive approach. The exis-tence of individuals for whom setting fires isrewarding sine qua non probably poses thebiggest challenge in arson treatment. Somepossibilities include a development of theearlier negative practice (repeatedly strikinga match) techniques employed in interven-tions with juvenile fire-setters (Kolko,1983). Such methods could be adaptedand personalised for adult fire-setters in asimilar way to existing treatments forsubstance misuse, although no standardisedfire-related stimuli currently exist.

In other forms of expressive arson, suchas Robb’s case where it is not the fire, butthe effects of the fire that provide theexpressive reinforcement, individualisedinterventions could target more positive

432 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

ways for the identity construct needs, forexample to be seen as heroic, to be met.

Case Study 2: Adaptive

Dean is a 31-year old, serving a lifesentence for a series of commercial firesand assaults he committed in his hometown. Dean’s life story features manyaccounts describing the seeking out ofsituations and experiences that presentexcitement and pleasure, without the con-striction of work and responsibility.

. . . one day I would be in Leeds burgling,the next I would be in Manchesterdefrauding somebody or you’d knowwhat I mean, stealing something, conningsomebody, you’d know what I mean,Manchester, London, Leeds, Birming-ham, where ever, it would be big city,day in day out, I’d make three hundredpounds a day or whatever go get my hotelfor the night, get my drink and drugsready, plan to get a one night stand orwhatever, you’d know what I mean, thiswas constant you’d know what I mean,that would be my daily plan, I loved it, itwas brilliant, the excitement of it, it wasworth all the hard work, it was just like,on one hand I was a professional fraud-ster or con man or whatever and on theother hand I was jack the lad going outand getting these women . . .

The primary imago that emerges withinDean’s life story is that of the Hedonist orPleasure-Seeker, an imago that exhibits nei-ther themes of agency or communion. Ac-cording to McAdams (1988) the concerns ofthe Pleasure-Seeker focus on the escape ofresponsibility, a character who prefers to playand make merry rather than deal with theburden of the chores and relationships of life.

From Dean’s perspective his criminalbehaviour serves no long-term purpose,simply using the rewards of his actions tolive for life’s indulgences rather than toplan for the future:

. . . my motto is, I like to live king for theday, you’d know what I mean, I don’tsteal to plan for the future I just steal to

live day by day erm, I like to get up in themorning and have a grand in my pocketand go out and buy clothes and jewelleryand go out for posh meals you’d knowwhat I mean, and if I meet somebody,treat them well or what ever, you’d knowwhat I mean just for that day, yeah, Ilove it . . .

In terms of his fire-setting behaviour,features consistent with the Hedonist im-ago also are apparent. The targets werethose that he had initially entered for thepurpose of burglary in order to fund thelifestyle he was living, including alcoholand drugs.

These recurrent behaviours echoing theHedonist imago appear to reflect theadaptive mode of action described byFritzon et al. (2001) in which aspects ofthe environment (including other people)are manipulated in order to achieveprimarily instrumental goals. Fires set byindividuals operating within this modeoften occur in the context of othercriminal behaviour, and the individualsresponsible tend to have extensive criminalcareers.

From this perspective, the adaptiveform of fire-setting may not be the primaryfocus of intervention work. Rather, thegenerally delinquent lifestyle, and cognitivestructures or distortions that allow themaintenance of such antisocial behaviour.This is the form of fire- setting that isprobably most amenable to the generalsocial skills training model, which attemptsto introduce new ways of thinking that arenot compatible with criminality in general;skills such as perspective taking, empathy,moral reasoning, etc.

Case Study 3: Conservative

Gareth is a 46-year old convicted ofreckless arson for a fire he set in his maritalhome. At the time of the interview he wasnearing the end of his four-year sentence.In contrast with the previous case, prior to

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 433

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

the fire-setting episode, Gareth led asuccessful business and personal life.

I was always working, but I was quitehappy doing it you know . . . what I usedto do was, as we expanded I used to goout and fit the carpets during the day andthen in the evening I’d . . . go round andshow people samples, you know, theywould phone up for samples.

A number of imagoes therefore emergefrom Gareth’s life story. However, theprimary imago to surface is that of theEntrepreneur or Capitalist, characterisedby features relating to the making of profitor the mastering of the inanimate world ofgoods and services (McAdams, 1988).

The imago of the Entrepreneur is notlimited to Gareth’s business, but also isrealised with respect to his familyenvironment:

. . . I used to work all the hours, anythingshe wanted I’d get, when I moved in theflat was a mess and so I did it up . . . andthen we moved to a bigger house and thenI built an extension on that . . . I’d done ahell of a lot to that house, I had doubledthe value with the extension I had builtand everything else

Personified within Gareth’s narrative isthe sense of enjoyment he receives from themastering of his environment, thus theseinstrumental behaviours can be seen tohave an internal focus. In other words, theyprovide him with a sense of personalempowerment. His narrative focuses onworking long hours to provide for his wife,the restoration and extension of his ownhome to provide suitable accommodationfor his family and the compromises hemakes with his wife to maintain peacewithin their acrimonious relationship. Thisinternal goal-directed behaviour is similarto the Conservative mode of action de-scribed by Fritzon et al. (2001).

This interpretation also is consistentwith the features of his offence. Garethtargeted his former marital home, which heperceived as his pride and joy and as such

the fire he set is strategically placed so asnot to cause significant damage to housebut enough damage to upset his wife:

. . . there was a petrol can on the floor andI just wanted to, I didn’t want to set fireto the house, but I wanted to get back ather, now I don’t know, I picked up thecan as I walked in and I spread a bit onthe stairs thinking, I’m not really surewhat I was thinking totally, but I thoughtit would be safe, because I knew the houseso well, I didn’t think it would spread,and I thought she would come back andthere’s just going be a horrible mess therein the middle of the stairs . . .

In keeping with the Entrepreneur im-ago, Gareth sets the fire where damage islikely to be minimal, as to destroy thewhole property would be a contradiction tothe agentic features exhibited by thischaracter. Although Gareth has chosen totarget this particular property as a meansof regaining some element of controlduring the breakdown of his marriage, heis careful not to eradicate a project thatoccupies a significant position within hislife story. The offence details as recalled byGareth are those that reflect the Conserva-tive form of arson described by Fritzonet al. (2001). Specifically these behavioursinclude the use of accelerants, the offenderbeing intoxicated at the time of the fire, thefire follows an argument and threats ofdamage, and is targeted specifically at aknown victim, in this case his ex-wife.

In this way, Gareth’s fire-setting can beseen as a form of ‘displaced aggression’aimed at his ex-wife, but actually targetedat their marital home. Arsonists who usethis form of aggression are generallyunderstood to require interventions aroundimproving their assertiveness and problem-solving abilities.

Case Study 4: Integrative

Gerry is a 48-year-old man convicted ofattempted arson by reckless damage for an

434 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

attempted fire on a retirement home.Serving a life sentence for his offence,Gerry’s life story also contains descriptionsof a number of fires set prior to his presentconviction. Gerry’s narrative begins withrecollections of his early family life:

I was born with a disability, as to whatthe disability is I don’t know, so that hadgreat bearing on my very early years oflife to a degree that I couldn’t walk until Iwas about six or seven years old, and as aresult I just, I didn’t, I couldn’t get toknow my real family, when I said my realfamily I mean, my adopted family,

As Gerry was born with a disabilitythat made walking difficult, he spent muchtime hospitalised, jeopardising the relation-ships he formed with his adopted familyleading to a failure to establish what hefeels was a normal, secure base to hisupbringing. This position is compoundedby the fact that Gerry was a black childadopted into a white family which added tothe sense of not belonging he experiencedand placed another obstacle for him toovercome while growing up and for him,disadvantaging his beginnings in life. Assuch, the prominent imago to emerge inGerry’s life story is that of the Underdog(McAdams, 1988). This is a character thatpersonifies thoughts and behaviours thatcan be construed as negative representa-tions of agentic imagoes and are charac-terised by features relating to struggle,strife and injustice. For this imago, battlesmust be endured against the odds in orderto conquer and succeed within life. Thesituations where the Underdog emerges arethose of negativity and oppression andillustrate chapters that emphasise the in-dividual’s lack of control and strengthwithin specific situations:

I was literally the black sheep of thefamily and that made me different,because I was the only, like sort of, theonly black person, and at that timebetween sort of, you know, in the time Iwas born in 1954: a black person was

very, very you know rare . . . so as a resultyou know my, my adopted parents got alot of stick, and it affected me as well . . . Idid feel very, very lonely, and not - Ididn’t feel part of the family for somereason or another, even though, youknow I had these two people who tookit upon their shoulders to take me intotheir home and adopt me, but I suppose itwas really the colour thing . . .

Throughout Gerry’s life story arechapters dominated with episodes of victi-misation by others. He often was ridiculedand bullied because of his disability andcolour, leading to expressions within hislife story of resentment and anger. Theexpression of these emotions within Ger-ry’s narrative tends to be in the form ofphysical violence and has on a number ofoccasions resulted in threats of violence oractual bodily harm after episodes ofvictimisation.

One particular episode personifies theUnderdog’s sense of inadequacy and in-ability to deal with specific situations.Gerry describes an occasion when he wasliving in a residential placement run by awoman and her family, and they went onholiday leaving him with the otherresidents:

. . . I was expected like to take control ofthe house whilst she was away but Icouldn’t because I felt these people werefar more powerful they were like sort ofyou know, ex junkies and things like, thefirst time ever I had any dealings, youknow and these people were far more likesort of mightier than me you know Iwasn’t strong enough like sort of fightthem and as a result I became verydepressed and that was my first attemptedsuicide . . .

This expression of negative emotionsinitially directed externally and then turnedinward reflects the Integrative mode offunctioning as described by Fritzon et al.(2001). Violence directed externally ap-pears to restore emotional equilibriumand control, and Gerry also describes

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 435

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

direct attempts to draw attention todistress:

. . . the criminal damage part of it was likeyou know, please will someone like sort oftake notice of me, you know, but, but likethey had given me residential orders andyou know putting me into hostels, to mewasn’t taking notice of me, you know, itwas just like punishing me . . .

Within the recall of his offences are fire-setting behaviours that are consistent withthe Integrative category of arson; fires aretargeted at residential properties, includinghis own home, involve multiple seats of fireand multiple items, and show a disregardfor human life, including Gerry’s own life.

Fire-setters who use fire to draw atten-tion to their own personal distress andunsatisfactory circumstances may respondto treatment that follows the principles ofdialectical behaviour therapy frequentlyemployed in cases of borderline personalitydisorder (Linehan, 1993). This has beenfound to reduce parasuicidal behaviour,among other problems associated withemotion regulation. Both self-harm andfire-setting are manifestations of beha-viour- representing emotions that areturned inwards, and indeed recent research(Miller & Fritzon, 2007) also employing anaction systems framework has found evi-dence for functional consistency across fire-setting and self-harming behaviour in agroup of female arsonists.

Implications for Treatment

In addition to the specific suggestionsoffered by each of the four potential sub-groups of arsonists described above, thepotential benefits of a narrative approachto therapy for some fire-setters may beworth considering. Narrative therapy itselfis commonly associated with family ther-apy (White, 2007) and may be of benefit foradolescent or young adult arsonists whoare in the process of identity formation andfor whom fire-setting has become, or is

becoming, a characteristic way of commu-nicating needs. In addition, a narrativeapproach may be useful for those arsonistswhom obtain sensory reinforcement fromthe properties of the fire itself, as it ispossible that a pathological fascinationwith fire may have some symbolic orspecific significance in the life story of thearsonist. Given that it may be difficult touncover these specific associations within agroup format, individual treatment as anadjunct to a generic group treatmentprogram, may be warranted.

Conclusions

This article has drawn together the litera-ture describing the characteristics of adultarsonists, and has described a number ofgeneric features of these individuals as wellas specific features of particular categoriesof arsonist. A number of models of arsonhave been summarised, that indicate thebasis on which empirical classifications offire-setting and fire-setters have arisen.Finally, a model has been presented thatattempts to integrate the understanding ofthe arsonist within a framework thatconnects with a number of aspects ofpersonality theories.

From the narrative analysis sum-marised above, there appears to be someevidence to suggest that styles of fire-setting behaviour merge with the otherexperiences that the individual draws at-tention to in their life story. This wouldsuggest that the repertoire of offencebehaviours that the arsonist draws uponis grounded in features of the individual asa whole as evident in other areas of theirlives besides their offence. At least twopossible interpretations of this consistency,both with similar implications for treat-ment and intervention with arsonists exist.

Firstly, it may be that the arsonist’sparticular style of fire-setting is influencedby the inner narrative he constructs as ameans of providing coherence and

436 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

consistency to the world he lives in and therole he occupies within it. In this respect, thestyle of fire-setting behaviours adopted isinfluenced by the story framework that hasalready been constructed, and can beexpected therefore to remain relativelystable upon further fire-setting episodes.Alternatively, depending on the role occu-pied by fire-setting and the point at whichthis becomes integrated within the indivi-dual’s life story, it may be that the act ofarson itself shapes the story and influencesthe meaning constructed therein. Essen-tially, this is an argument about the extentto which the life story constitutes a stablepart of the individual’s personality, andwhat role individual episodes within thestory have in shaping character. Of course,this is a debate which is at the heart ofpersonality theories themselves, and is notpossible to resolve here. The implication,however, is that an individual undergoingtreatment for arson, or indeed for any otherdestructive form of behaviour, must beaided in understanding the function of theirbehaviour within a broader perspective thanjust the criminal context which has broughtthem to treatment. In this way, it may bepossible to re-formulate the life story into amore positive and pro-social construction.

Note

1. All client identifying details have been chan-ged to protect privacy and confidentiality.

References

American Psychiatric Association (1994). Diag-nostic and statistical manual of mentaldisorders IV training revision. Washington:American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychiatric Association (2000). Diag-nostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders, 4th Edition, Text revision. Wa-shington: American Psychiatric Association.

Barnett, W., & Spitzer, M. (1994). Pathologicalfiresetting 1951-1991: A review. MedicineScience and the Law, 34, 4–20.

Bradford, J.M.W. (1982).Arson:A clinical study.Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 27, 188–193.

Canter, D. (1994). Criminal shadows. London:Harper Collins.

Canter, D., & Fritzon, K. (1998). Differentiat-ing arsonists: A model of firesetting actionsand characteristics. Legal and Criminologi-cal Psychology, 3, 73–96.

Clinard, M.B., & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminalbehaviour systems. New York: Holt, Rine-hart and Winston.

Cornell, D.G., Warren, J., Hawk, G., Stafford,E., Oram, G., & Pine, D. (1996). Psycho-pathy in instrumental and reactive violentoffenders. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 64, 783–790.

Durkheim, E. (1897). Suicide. (English Trans1952) London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Esquirol, J.E.D. (1845). Mental Maladies: ATreatise on Insanity. Philadelphia: Lea &Blanchard.

Fritzon, K., & Brun, A. (2005). Beyondcolumbine: A faceted model of school-associated homicide. Psychology, Crime &Law, 11, 53–71.

Fritzon, K., Canter, D., & Wilton, Z. (2001).The application of an action systems modelto destructive behaviour: The examples ofarson and terrorism. Behavioral Sciencesand the Law, 19, 657–690.

Gannon, T.A., & Pina, A. (2010). Firesetting:Psychopathology, theory and treatment.Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 15, 224–238.

Geller, J.L. (1992a). Arson in review: Fromprofit to pathology. Clinical Forensic Psy-chiatry, 15, 623–645.

Geller, J.L. (1992b). Communicative arson.Hos-pital and Community Psychiatry, 43, 76–77.

Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (1984). Mentallydisordered firesetters: Psycho-dynamic ver-sus empirical approaches. InternationalJournal of Law and Psychiatry, 7, 19–34.

Harris, G.T., & Rice, M.E. (1996). A typologyof mentally disordered firesetters. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 11, 351–363.

Hurley, W., & Monahan, T.M. (1969). Arson:The criminal and the crime. The BritishJournal of Criminology, 9, 4–21.

Inciardi, J.A. (1970). The adult firesetter - atypology. Criminology, 8, 145–155.

Jackson, H.F., Glass, C., & Hope, S. (1987). Afunctional analysis of recidivistic arson.BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 175–185.

Kafry, D. (1978). Fire Survival Skills: Who playswith matches? Technical report for PacificSouthwest and Range Experiment Station.Washington DC: United States Departmentof Agriculture.

Looking at the Characteristics of Adult Arsonists 437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015

Kafry, D. (1980). Playing with matches: Childrenand fire. In D. Canter (Ed.), Fires and HumanBehaviour (1st ed.) (pp. 47–61). London:David Fulton.

Kolko, D.J. (1983). Multicomponent parentaltreatment of firesetting in a developmentally-disabled boy. Journal of Behavior Therapyand Experimental Psychiatry, 14, 349–353.

Lewis, H. (2004). Narrative consistency: Therole of fire setting within the life story.Unpublished PhD thesis, University ofSurrey, UK.

Linehan, M.M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioraltreatment of borderline personality disor-der. New York: Guilford.

Maruna, S. (1997). Going straight: Desistancefrom crime and self-narratives of reform.Narrative Study of Lives, 5, 59–93.

McAdams, D.P. (1988). Biography, narrative,and lives: An introduction. In D.P.McAdams & L.R. Ochberg (Eds.), Psycho-biography and life narratives (pp. 1–18).Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

McAdams, D.P. (2000). The person: Anintegrated introduction to personality psy-chology. Fort Worth US: Harcourt College.

McAdams, D.P. (2001). The psychology of lifestories. Review of General Psychology, 5,100–122.

Miller, S., & Fritzon, K. (2007). Functionalconsistency across two behavioural modal-ities: Firesetting and self harm in femalespecial hospital patients. Criminal Behaviourand Mental Health, 17, 31–44.

Pettiway, L.E. (1987). Arson for revenge: Therole of environmental situation, age, sex andrace. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3,169–184.

Pisani (1982). Identifying arson motives. Fireand Arson Investigator, 32, 18–25.

Prins, H. (1994). Fire-raising: Its motivation andmanagement. Routledge: London.

Ray, I. (1844). Treatise on the Medical Jurispru-dence of Insanity (2nd ed.). Boston: WilliamD Tickner.

Rice, M.E., & Harris, G.T. (1991). Firesettersadmitted to a maximum security psychiatricinstitution: Offenders and offences. Journalof Interpersonal Violence, 6, 461–475.

Robbins, E., & Robbins, L. (1967). Arson withspecial reference to pyromania. New YorkState Journal of Medicine, 67, 795–798.

Salfati, C.G., & Canter, D.V. (1999). Differ-entiating stranger murders: Profiling offen-der characteristics from behavioural styles.Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 17, 391–406.

Santtila, P., Hakkanen, H., & Fritzon, K.(2003). Inferring the characteristics of anarsonist from crime scene behaviour: A casestudy in offender profiling. InternationalJournal of Police Science and Management,5, 1–15.

Vreeland, R.G., & Waller, M.B. (1978). Thepsychology of firesetting: A review andappraisal. National Bureau of Standards,grant no.7-9021. Washington, DC: USGovernment Printing Office.

White, M. (2007). Maps of narrative practice.New York: W.W. Norton.

Wiggins, J.S., & Broughton, R. (1985). Theinterpersonal circle: A structural model forintegrating personality research. In R.Hogan & W.H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectivesin personality (Vol. 1) (pp. 1–47). Green-wich, CT: JAI Press.

438 K. Fritzon et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Bon

d U

nive

rsity

] at

20:

55 0

7 Ju

ne 2

015