Search results

Psychological research on fire has focussed primarily on its misuse in the form of arson and firesetting, which reflects a tradition in forensic psychology for focussing on risk and pathological behaviour. However, this is inconsistent with the strengths-based approach because it fails to account for positive aspects of fire and law-abiding/ healthy interactions with fire. This study aims to explore the psychology of non-criminalised forms of fire use. It is predicated on a novel, dimensional, conceptualisation of fire-related behaviour – the continuum of fire use (CoFU; Horsley, 2020, 2021).

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 adults who use fire in law-abiding forms. Data were analysed using techniques informed by grounded theory. Steps were taken to ensure reliability and validity, including a Cohen’s Kappa calculation, which indicated an agreement level of 0.8 between two raters.

Four core themes were identified relating to the benefits of fire on psychological well-being, namely, immediate gratification; hope and empowerment; self-concept and emotional security.

Drawing on findings from this study, a theoretical framework of the psychology of non-criminalised fire use is presented. This is a preliminary conceptualisation and more work is needed to address this under-researched topic.

The findings can inform the work of forensic practitioners. They highlight the importance of considering service users' positive interactions with fire, alongside maladaptive/ criminal use. This has implications for the assessment of fire setters, as well as rehabilitative approaches.

It is argued in this paper that a society-wide approach is key to firesetting reduction. More specifically, findings can inform the development and refinement of early intervention programmes, which focus on supporting young people to develop a healthy relationship with fire.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this study is the first to explore the psychology of non-criminalised forms of fire use. It is predicated on a novel, dimensional, conceptualisation of fire-related behaviour – the continuum of fire use (CoFU; Horsley, 2020, 2021a, 2021b).

Previous qualitative research by Horsley (2020) and Lee (2019) highlighted the importance of self-concept (SC) in understanding fire use. This study, therefore, aims to further investigate the relevance of SC in non-criminalised fire use, with a view towards informing early interventions for firesetting prevention.

In this preliminary study, ten participants engaging in extensive, non-criminalised fire use were interviewed about their fire-related experiences and how this relates to SC. This was analysed using techniques informed by the grounded theory.

Three core categories were identified: control, identity and self-esteem, which provide a preliminary framework for understanding how SC and non-criminalised fire use are inter-related. The core categories relate to the study aim because they are conceptualised as three elements of SC, which are strengthened through interactions with fire. The mechanisms through which the categories relate to fire use and SC are discussed.

Forensic implications are discussed regarding early intervention and prevention. The authors argue that knowledge of non-criminalised fire use could provide a valuable blueprint for healthy fire use and, thus, feed into treatment and intervention. Given that previous research has highlighted the importance of SC in relation to how and why people interact with fire, the authors suggest that it should be given greater emphasis in clinical work with those thought to be at risk of firesetting.

To date, firesetting research has focused primarily on criminalised acts, i.e. arson. This paper adopts a different approach and explores how and why people engage with fire in healthy and adaptive ways.

Most individuals regularly encounter fire, but certain uses are legally disallowed. Horsley (2020, 2021; in press) proposed the continuum of fire use theory (CoFUT), which posits that the legitimacy of fire use exists on a spectrum. This study aims to investigate the CoFUT and to elucidate the process of conceptualising legitimacy in a sample of legitimate fire users.

A sample of 16 legitimate fire users underwent semi-structured interviews regarding their own experiences with fire, the factors considered when determining the legitimacy of fire use and the relationships between those factors. The data extracted was subjected to conceptual analysis.

Analysis indicated that the legitimacy of fire use is best conceptualised along a continuum. Placement on the continuum required consideration of seven defining attributes: function; location; scale; materials used; characteristics of the actor(s); potential and actual consequences, and social acceptance. These attributes were shown to have interactive semantic relationships with one another.

A continuum approach to understanding fire use is a novel conceptualisation. Exposing the nuances that exist along the continuum could inform early intervention strategies aimed at fostering healthy relationships between young people and fire. Furthermore, practitioners working with arsonists would benefit from adopting a continuum perspective that allows for consideration of offenders’ individualised trajectory “up and down” the continuum of fire use.

Findings offer support for the CoFUT (2020; 2021; in press) and provide insight into how the legitimacy of fire use is conceptualised in legitimate fire users.

Research indicates that children’s early experience of fire can influence what and how they learn about fire. In turn, early fire-learning can influence how people come to use it later in life, including whether they engage in maladaptive use, i.e. firesetting. Little is known about the underlying mechanisms of fire-learning, which was the basis for this study. The research question was: “how do adults educate children about fire in the UK/ Ireland”? The purpose of this study was to explore the child fire education process from an adult perspective.

Semi-structured interviews was conducted with 21 fire-educators who had regular contact with children. Data was analysed using abbreviated grounded theory. Steps were taken to ensure reliability and validity, including a Cohen’s Kappa calculation, indicating an agreement level of 0.9 between two raters.

Four core themes were identified: the fire narrative, enabling growth, risk management, and communication, from which the fire-learning process model (F-LPM) was formed.

The main limitation is the nature of the sample, in that it was diverse and self-selecting.

The findings are discussed, including how they offer support for social learning theory (SLT) perspectives on fire-learning.

The social construction of fire (i.e. the way fire is viewed by society as a whole in the UK/ Ireland) is discussed in depth, and cultural variability is highlighted. Suggestions are made for how the societal view of fire and, consequently, how adults convey this to young people, could be better balanced.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study in the UK/ Ireland to consider how adults educate young people about fire from a concurrent perspective. This is important given that research indicates early experiences of fire can impact how people later go on to use it (including maladaptive use in the form of firesetting).

This study aims to explore whether early anti-social fire exposure (ASFE) is associated with how adults engage with fire and how they view fire.

An opportunistic sample (N = 326) was recruited. Participants completed an online survey exploring ASFE, fire use, strength of fire-beliefs and interest in/attitudes supportive of fire. Additionally, implicit fire bias was measured using the affect misattribution procedure (AMP).

Participants with ASFE engaged with more criminalised fire use as adults. They also scored higher on fire interest and general fire beliefs and showed an implicit dislike of fire stimuli, compared to non-exposed participants (although differences in fire use were not statistically significant when gender was accounted for). Males also had higher levels of fire interest, held stronger fire related beliefs and were more likely to have been exposed to ASFE during childhood. However, there were no gender differences in fire use or on the implicit task.

The findings have practical application, namely in relation to early intervention and rehabilitative approaches. However, a limitation is that participants’ cultural background were not accounted for. Additionally, we advise caution in interpreting the implicit results and call for further research.

The need for better early interventions for young people is highlighted, along with better screening which, currently, is unstandardised and inconsistent across the country (Foster, 2020). This demands a community-engagement approach.

This is the first study to explore type of early exposure to fire. It is also the first to adopt the AMP as a measure of implicit fire-bias.

This paper aims to outline the first stages of an exploratory study into how the UK fire and rescue services (FRSs) identify those children and young people who require psychosocial interventions to address their firesetting behaviour.

A purposive sample (N = 53) representing all the UK FRSs was recruited. Participants completed an online survey to establish the type of firesetting intervention provided, if any; the training and policies available to staff who identify those clients requiring psychosocial interventions and what influences this decision-making.

Decision-making on how to identify clients requiring psychosocial interventions was dominated by professional judgement informed by practitioner training and experience alone, which is subject to human error and bias. Some staff undertaking this risk-critical work have no access to training and/or written guidance to assist their decision-making. Nearly 30% of participants (N = 14) deemed national firesetting policy as not useful in identifying the type of firesetting intervention needed. The development of a risk assessment tool, training and national written guidance were considered the three main ways staff could be helped in identifying those clients requiring psychosocial interventions.

The implications are as follows: the development of a risk assessment tool for fire and rescue service staff working with children and young people who set fires, a requirement for all fire and rescue staff working with children and young people who set fires to receive mandatory training in this specialist field of work, all FRSs to offer firesetting intervention services to children and young people, all FRSs to have written firesetting policies that assist staff in their identification of firesetting risk and national firesetting guidance for FRSs that assists staff in their identification of firesetting risk and the tenets of defensible decision-making.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to look at how the UK FRSs identify those children and young people requiring psychosocial interventions to address their firesetting behaviour. The 100% completion rate to the online survey suggests the findings are generalisable across all the UK FRSs, providing the FRS professional body with an opportunity to instigate the changes their frontline practitioners and managers have identified.