![handle is hein.journals/pcyceadl11 and id is 1 raw text is: Psychology, Crime & Law, March 2005, Vol. 11(1), pp. 1-15 BrunnerRutledge g ea
TEST OF THE ARSON ACTION SYSTEM MODEL IN AN
INCARCERATED POPULATION
LOUISE ALMONDa*, LORNA DUGGANb, JOHN SHINE' and DAVID CANTERd
aCentre for Investigative Psychology, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building,
Bedford Street South, Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK, bSt Andrew's Hospital, Billing Road,
Northampton, NNI 5DG, UK, HMP Grendon and Springhill, Aylesbury, Bucks, HP]8 OTL,
UK, dCentre for Investigative Psychology, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South,
Liverpool, L69 7ZA, UK
(Received 17 March 2003; in final form 5 September 2003)
Canter and Fritzon (Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 73-96, 1998) proposed a new model of
differentiating arsonists based on the action system model. This is a replication of their study utilising
interviews with 65 inmates from one prison, HMP Grendon. A smallest space analysis (SSA) supported an
action system model of four distinct modes, adaptive, expressive, integrative and conservative, reflecting
Canter and Fritzon's four distinct themes of arson (Canter and Fritzon, 1998). Two themes relate to expressive
acts - (a) those arsons targeted at a person and (b) those at an object. The remaining two relate to
instrumental acts - (c) those targeted at a person and (d) those at an object. Using four scales, which related to
the four themes, 55 (85%) of the acts could be assigned to either one or two adjoining themes. The study gives
further support to the utility of the action system model and the model of firesetting behaviour proposed by
Canter and Fritzon, when using a different method of data collection with a sample of serious offenders.
Keywords: Arson; Action System Model; Prisoners; Smallest Space Analysis
INTRODUCTION
In 1998, Canter and Fritzon proposed an action system model that attempts to differentiate
arson behaviours based purely on behavioural indicators rather than inferred motives.
Canter and Fritzon (1998) argued that variations in types of arson might be considered
similar to the variations that can be found in other behavioural action systems. These models
are of value as they allow data to be categorised, enabling reduction, while distilling its
essence. Models also allow the salient aspects and distinct processes that are involved in
crimes to be readily identified.
Firesetting has a long-standing link with mental disorder. Lewis and Yarnell (1951)
undertook a comprehensive survey of arson, from which they developed a classification of
firesetters. Further classificatory systems were proposed (Scott, 1978; Prins et al., 1985).
Classification has been problematic, with mental state and motivation being utilised (Prins et
al., 1985). Research carried out by the UK Home Office estimates that only 17% of
individuals arrested for arson suffer from some form of mental disorder. Classification
*Corresponding author. E-mail: lalmond@liv.ac.uk
ISSN 1068-316X print/ISSN 1477-2744 online © 2005 Taylor & Francis Ltd
DOI: 10.1080/1068316031009634287
1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/pcyceadl11&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)
What Is HeinOnline?
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most
Contact us for annual subscription options:
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
profiles profiles most