Guest editorial
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRPP-09-2022-078 |
| Published date | 10 August 2022 |
| Date | 10 August 2022 |
| Pages | 137-139 |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Criminology & forensic psychology |
| Author | Faye Horsley |
Guest editorial
Faye Horsley
Firesetting special edition
Welcome to this special editionof the Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice
(JCRPP). This issue focuses on recent developments in the field of firesetting. The past
decade has seen significant advances in the psychological and criminological
understanding of firesetting (sometimes also referred to as arson within the literature). For
example, the multi-factorial theory of adult fire setting (the M-TTAF; Gannon and O
´’Ciardha
et al., 2012) has been hugely influential as a basis for research and clinical practice. There
has also been progress in the treatment of firesetters (Tyler et al., 2018), and a self-report
measure has been developed to assist with the assessment of fire-specific psychological
characteristics (O
´’Ciardha et al., 2015). More recently still, a broaderlens has been applied
to explore fire use, to includefire-related behaviour, which could be described as adaptiveor
non-criminalised (Horsley,2020,2021,2022). Published work in the past few years has also
explored the classification of firesetting(Tyler and Gannon, 2021), and there has been a call
for more multi-disciplinarywork to understand the human–fire relationship (Horsley,2022).
Whilst the aforementioned advances are encouraging, our understanding of firesetting and
fire use is incomplete. Furthermore, there are a number of common themes in the existing
literature (as highlighted by Horsley,2022), which means that the research agenda is at risk
of becoming repetitive without moves to “break the mould”. My primary objective for this
edition was to identify novel researchthat moves the field on. Before introducing each of the
contributions, I will provide an overview of the gaps in understanding, which this special
edition seeks to address:
䊏Most empirical research is based on apprehended firesetters (Barrowcliffe and
Gannon, 2015), i.e. those residing in prisons or forensic hospital settings. This is
problematic because arson has a poor detection rate (Daykin and Hamilton, 2011),
meaning that many people who set fires will never find themselves in custody. There is,
therefore, a need for more community-based research (Horsley, 2022).
䊏There has been progress in understanding the role of cognition in firesetting research
over the past decade (for example, O
´Ciardha and Gannon, 2012;Butler and Gannon,
2021). However, we know very little about the origin of such cognitions. For example,
how and when do beliefs about fire form? How do people learn to use fire, and how is
this influenced by their early experiences?
䊏The treatment of those who set fires is in its infancy. Encouragingly, there has been a shift
away from the “one size fits all” approach (Horsley, 2022) and efforts are now being focused
on developing interventions which are tailored to the needs of firesetters specifically (Tyler
et al., 2018). However, we should still be striving to learn more about “what works”.
䊏Connected with the previous point, rehabilitative interventions are surely only one part
of a much larger and more complex picture in terms of how to reduce firesetting. Most
existing treatment programmes are designed for those who have already committed
firesetting crimes. I suggest that the same attention should be paid to the development
and refinement of community-based intervention programmes. As outlined in Horsley
Faye Horsley is based at
the Department of
Psychology, Northumbria
University, Newcastle upon
Tyne, UK.
DOI 10.1108/JCRPP-09-2022-078 VOL. 8 NO.3 2022, pp. 137-139,©Emerald Publishing Limited, ISSN 2056-3841 jJOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGICAL RESEARCH, POLICY AND PRACTICE jPAGE 137
To continue reading
Request your trial