It is hypothesized that there will be behavioural consistencies in the actions of arsonists when committing a crime that characterize them. The themes underlying these observable differences can be used to help us understand the nature of the offence. With arson, one such observable difference is hypothesized to relate to the target or focus of the attack. The study tested whether consistencies could be found that distinguish person‐oriented from object‐oriented arsons. A second proposed facet of arson actions relates to the motivational category underlying the act, being either instrumental or expressive. It was also hypothesized, therefore, that there would be a distinction in the arson actions between fires set for a clear instrumental purpose, and those which may be regarded as emotional acting‐out. The hypothesis that these four themes would differentiate arsonists was tested by analysing 175 solved arson cases from across England. The case files were content analysed to produce 42 behavioural variables taken from both the crime reports and witness statements. In order to test the hypotheses of differentiation a smallest space analysis was carried out. The results support this framework giving rise to four distinct themes to arson from which scales with reasonable alpha scores could be derived. Two relate to expressive acts, (a) those that are realized within the arsonist's own feelings, being analogous to suicide, and (b) those that are acted on objects, like the burning of symbolic buildings. The other two relate to instrumental acts, (c) those that are for personal indulgence, similar to personal revenge, and (d) those that have an object focus such as hiding evidence from a crime. A further test of the validity of these four themes was to examine the typical characteristics of the people who committed the different types of arson. Four scales of arsonists' characteristics were developed. These were found to have appropriate, statistically significant correlations with the four themes. The implications of these findings for understanding the varieties of arson as revealed through the actions that occur are discussed, as well as the implications for arson investigations. It is speculated that this framework may provide a general model for considering a wide range of crimes.

No abstract

This article argues that criminal and deviant behaviour can be productively viewed through an action system framework. The idea is developed by considering two forms of destructive behaviour: arson and barricade-hostage terrorist incidents. Two studies are presented. The first study tests the hypothesis that different forms of arson will reflect the four dominant states that an action system can take; integrative, expressive, conservative, and adaptive. A smallest space analysis was performed on 46 variables describing 230 cases of arson and the results identified the four themes of action system functioning. An examination of the personal characteristics of the arsonists also produced four variable groupings and a combined analysis of the four action scales and four characteristics scales also supported the structural hypothesis of the action system model. The second study applied the action system model to the study acts of terrorist barricade-hostage incidents. A smallest space analysis of 44 variables coded from 41 incidents again revealed four distinct forms of activity, which were psychologically similar to the four modes of arson identified in study one. Overall, these two studies provide support for the appropriateness of the action system framework as a way of classifying different forms of deviant behaviour.

No abstract

The current paper applies action systems theory to the phenomenon of school violence perpetrated by children. This framework has been recently applied to understanding other forms of criminal behaviour and was hypothesised to be appropriate for understanding the function of aggression and interaction in school homicides. The data for the study consisted of 93 school-associated violent deaths occurring in North America between 1992 and 1999. Content analysis of these cases produced a set of 29 variables relating to perpetrator actions. In order to test the action systems hypotheses, a Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) was performed. The plot was partitioned according to an angular facet reflecting four modes of interaction, in the spatial order predicted by the model. Additionally, a radial facet was found that was interpreted as reflecting the offender's attempts to attain or preserve their sense of power. These results have implications both for understanding the motives and functions of violent behaviour in schools, as well as offering suggestions for interventions targeted at modifying this behaviour.

This study explores the role of the victim-offender relationship in the dynamics

No abstract

This article reviews the current literature on known risk factors for recidivistic arson, with a particular focus on factors that could be used to differentiate serial from 'one-off' arson offenders. The relevance of risk factors for general reoffending to recidivistic arson is discussed, including the role of criminal history, mental illness, and sociodemographic factors. The specific roles of offence related affect, cognitions, and the offender's interest in fire are considered, with recommendations for how theories from other areas of forensic psychology, such as the sex offender assessment and treatment literature, might be applied to the issue of deliberate fire-setting. Finally, protective factors are briefly discussed and the need for a structured risk assessment tool for deliberate fire-setters is canvassed. Given that research into risk and recidivism in fire-setting is underdeveloped, suggestions are made throughout the review for the focus of future research into risk factors for serial arson. consider what is known about factors associated with risk of repeat (serial) fire-setting behaviour in adult offenders. For the purposes of discussion, the terms "arson" and "firesetting" will be used interchangeably throughout although it is acknowledged that arson is a legal definition while fire-setting describes the behaviour itself.The issue of differentiating between serial and one-time arsonists has not been well canvassed in the literature. There are inherent difficulties with this distinction oriented around the secretive nature of the offence and the difficulties in detecting and apprehending firesetters. It seems likely that an individual's first fire-related conviction is not likely to be their first fire offence, but we rely on self-report data, with all the limitations this implies, to lend weight to that hypothesis. Nevertheless, some factors have been found to be relevant in differentiating repeat and one-time arsonists. In discussing risk factors it is necessary to consider those issues that relate to likelihood of further fire setting as well as those that specifically concern level of harm caused by the fire (Dickens, Sugarman, Edgar et al., 2009). It is likely that differences in rates may be due to population differences with mentally disordered samples perhaps exhibiting somewhat lower rates as a result of positive response to psychotherapeutic/pharmacological interventions. However, it appears that mental disorder in and of itself is not necessarily predictive of reoffending generally (see Barnett, Richter, et al., 1997). Certainly, at least one review has queried support for the notion of arsonists as dangerous recidivists (Brett, 2004) and, in general, it appears that arsonists will typically commit more than one arson offence, but that previous arson offending is not necessarily prognostic of future arson activity.The literature on repeat fire-setting has been hampered in part by inconsistent definitions of recidivism and contrasting sources of data. Some authors have relied on ...