All children will naturally be exposed to fire during the early years of life. It is part of the normal course of development that they acquire knowledge that is linked both to mastery over fire and its potential for destruction and harm. In contrast to the development of fire interest, the emergence of fire behavior in children and adolescents carries with it the potential for death, injury, and property loss of striking proportions. Children who become involved with fire early in life, and those who use fire in an unsafe and destructive manner, are at risk, not only for continued involvement with fire, but for psychopathology and behavioral problems. The challenge for clinicians therefore becomes identifying children at risk and helping parents and supervising adults curb maladaptive forms of fire activity that may lead a child down a maladaptive developmental pathway.

In this chapter, we summarize the literature on juvenile fire behavior, presenting a foundation for assessment and intervention. In child psychiatric settings, the behavioral health clinician occupies a critical role in adequately identifying children at risk, and offering treatment options that decrease the likelihood of maladaptive developmental outcomes. We will present an ecological transactional model (Figure 5.2.4.1) of the development of fire behavior that can serve as a foundation for research, but also a heuristic for clinical practice. We view this model as more accurately capturing the complexity of the developmental nature of fire behavior when compared with dominant motivational typology models. The ecological model will suggest characteristics of both maladaptive and adaptive pathways of fire behavior. Throughout the chapter, we will stress that fire behavior carries both short- and long-term risks, ranging from more immediate concerns including property damage, risk for human injury, behavioral problems, and psychopathology to more destructive forms of fireplay potentially emerging at a later point in development. We will review important considerations in the clinical evaluation of fire behavior and follow with a contemporary selection of the empirically supported educational and psychosocial interventions.

Of all individuals arrested for arson during the middle 1990s, over half were under the age of 18, and a third were younger than 15 years old (1). Although prevalence rates vary considerably, it is clear that juvenile firesetting remains an issue of significant clinical concern. Among child and adolescent psychiatric samples, incidence of firesetting has ranged from 2.3% to 15% for outpatients, and 14.3% to 34.7% for inpatients (2,3). Statistics from community samples have been somewhat more variable, with estimates ranging from as low as 3% (4). as high as 45% (5). with over 80% of males noted to be interested in fire and fireplay. As these data suggest, firesetting is a problem affecting boys more frequently than girls (6). In a review of 22 descriptive studies, Kolko (2). found that 82% of identified firesetters were male and the age of these children was on average 10 years, with older children having more extensive firesetting histories. Although prevalence estimates have focused primarily on U.S. samples, juvenile firesetting is thought to be a problem in other countries as well (7).
According to data collected from the Melbourne (Australia) Metropolitan Fire Brigade, nearly 20% of all reported fires are started by children (6).

These statistics are alarming and underscore the seriousness of juvenile firesetting. Fireplay among children annually accounts for thousands of uncontrolled fires, millions of dollars in property damage, severe injury, and death (1,6,8,9,10). In fact, fires and burns have been documented as the fourth most common cause of unintentional injury related death, resulting in more than 4,000 deaths each year (1,11). In 1997, statistics documented that 8% of deaths from residential fires occurred as a result of children’s fireplay, most often the result of the unsupervised use of lighters and matches. Furthermore, a survey conducted by the National Association of Fire Marshals determined that children were responsible for nearly 100,000 fires annually causing more than $250 million in property damage (10). This research clearly highlights the substantial role that children play in fire-related damages, injuries, and deaths. Making these numbers even more concerning is that the damages resulting from fires set by children are likely much larger than estimates suggest, as many fires set by children are never reported to fire departments. One study indicates that as few as 10% of all fires set by children are ever reported to the appropriate authorities (6,12).

Although most descriptive studies have focused on dangers immediate to juvenile firesetting (e.g., property loss, injury, death), enduring developmental outcomes associated with early fire experimentation are of integral importance to correction and prevention efforts. Interest in and attraction to fire is a common feature of childhood (13,14,15,16,17). Early fire curiosity and activity that is ignored or dismissed by supervising adults can lead a child down several possible maladaptive pathways. In a study of males ages 5 through 9 years, researchers found that interest in fire was almost universal across the sample, with one-half of the boys actually engaging in fireplay (5). Some children become involved in early fire activity that leads to continued experimentation and heightened interest and fascination in later childhood and adolescence. Other children remain interested in fire but cease to engage in fire behavior. Still others remain interested and engage in planned and deliberate fire behavior with the intention of causing damage or harm. The present section will serve to explore the etiology and developmental pathways associated with early firesetting. Recognizing risk may be the first step for parents and supervising adults in altering maladaptive developmental outcomes.

We present an ecological-transactional model that integrates theory and empirical findings (Figure 5.2.4.1). This model describes the individual, family, social and ecological factors associated with the onset and perpetuation of juvenile fire activity. Elements of these factors may combine to place a child on one of several pathways associated with dangerous fire behavior. As children mature, their cognitive and emotional development may place them at risk, or protect them against, engagement in destructive or dangerous fire behavior as well. Broadly, risk factors include the child’s individual characteristics and motivational repertoire, parental and family features,
as well as school, peers, and the community (18). It is important for clinicians to identify early distinguishing characteristics of juvenile firesetters so that intervention efforts can build upon strengths, target problem behaviors, and broaden the child and family’s problem solving repertoire, to protect against deviant developmental pathways and long-term maladaptive outcomes (19,20). In the present discussion, a focus will be placed on elements of the model that may contribute to the development of fire competency in children, despite exposure to conditions of adversity or the experience of failures at early points in development.

As the ecological-transactional model highlights, individual risk factors include age, gender, cognitive ability, fire-safety knowledge, social competence, executive functioning, as well as covert and delinquent behavior (21,22,23). Males, particularly those in the elementary and middle school years, are at high risk for fire experimentation. Furthermore, younger children (ages 3–8) may be at an increased risk for firesetting behavior due to cognitive developmental status or a limited understanding of the consequences associated with firesetting. Others have found juvenile firesetting samples to be socially immature, isolated, and overall socially incompetent (2). Children who have firesetting histories have also exhibited a higher incidence of other emotional and behavioral disturbances (14,24). In one pathway, limited social competence and diminished learning capacities can be associated with noncompliant, impulsive, hyperactive and reactive-aggressive behavior, creating a constellation of elements placing the child at risk of firesetting behavior. In another pathway, individual factors may combine to place a child at risk of antisocial, covert and delinquent activities including destruction of property, stealing, lying, running away, and truancy (2). These externalizing problems are thought to be developmental antecedents to fire behavior by some researchers (21), with others suggesting that firesetting behavior is an extreme form of conduct disorder (25).

In addition to the learning capacities and the frequency and intensity of disruptive behaviors, the child’s emotion regulation skills play a significant role in early fire behavior. This construct has been subsumed under the domain of motivation (26); however, we think it is important to examine self-regulation skills separately to clarify a child’s capacity for self-soothing, self-control, responsiveness to emotional stimuli and the capacity for self-monitoring emotional status. We have suggested elsewhere that curiosity and anger may be emotional triggers for firesetting behavior (12). Curiosity has demonstrated strong associations to parent reports of internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in clinical samples of children who have engaged in fire behavior. Some children who display excessive curiosity may be more emotionally dysregulated and display more frequent, earlier, or more significant forms of fire involvement (27). Compared to firesetting children scoring high on curiosity or interest, children reporting elevated anger have lower levels of psychopathology by parent report, and may engage in more deliberate and destructive involvement with fire (27). These findings highlight the possibility that difficulties regulating intense emotion (e.g., curiosity, fascination, or anger) influence the child’s development of maladaptive strategies or skills that lead to potentially more destructive forms of fireplay. It will be fruitful for future studies to examine more closely the effects of emotional dysregulation and its relationship to juvenile firesetting.

The child’s individual characteristics need to be considered in his/her environmental context to clarify risk of firesetting when evaluating developmental pathways toward firesetting. Cognitive behavioral models emphasize how children’s behavioral repertoires develop through observation, modeling, and conditioning processes. Researchers have noted that early fire experiences, access to incendiary materials, family members who smoke, and siblings and peers who have had a history of firesetting all contribute to the child’s development of maladaptive strategies which may increase risk of firesetting (12,14,15,18). In an early study of childhood fireplay, firesetting was found to be more frequent among boys whose fathers’ occupations directly or indirectly involved the use of fire when compared with those children whose fathers’ occupations were unrelated to fire (28). Furthermore, child and adolescent firesetters have reported more frequent observation of friends and family members who smoke and use fire regularly (22). Kolko and Kazdin (18). report that access to firesetting materials alone can provide the conditions sufficient for children to become involved in fire-related activities (a child who uses a candle to light paper on a stove). Accessibility may be facilitated by peers or adults who model smoking or other fire behaviors or who carelessly leave materials accessible to children. Observation and modeling appear to be an important mechanism in the development of fire behavior.

Fire-related learning, behavioral, and emotional dysregulation are influenced by the family context. Additional familial risk factors for trajectories leading toward firesetting behaviors include parental psychopathology, emotional distance and communication, harsh disciplinary strategies, limited supervision, and stressful life events (22,27,29). For example, parents of juvenile firesetters have been found to demonstrate a significantly greater incidence of psychological disturbance including schizophrenia, other psychotic disorders, depression, and substance abuse. Others have reported parents of firesetters to be less nurturing, unresponsive, and at times rejecting (21,27). These relationships have been described as conflict laden and unaffectionate (27) and frequently involve limited communication between parent and child. A prospective study found a link between marital violence, paternal abuse of animals, paternal alcohol use and children’s firesetting behavior (30). Additional work has documented a significant relationship between parental disciplinary strategies and fire behavior. In particular, research suggests that juvenile firesetters tend to come from families who either use unduly harsh punishment practices (31), or mild, less effective, forms of discipline (22). Related to this finding, researchers report that prolonged absence and insufficient supervision from parental figures can also lead to engagement in antisocial behavior (27). Left to their own, children are more likely to participate in covert behaviors and may even act out in an effort to engage otherwise inattentive parents. Moreover, stressful events such as a death in the family, divorce, or the introduction of a new step-parent may also be associated with firesetting among children and adolescents (21). Taken together, these findings suggest that ineffective parenting patterns are both directly and indirectly linked to firesetting.

As the ecological-transactional model suggests, children’s developmental pathways are also linked to other social and ecological factors including peers, school, neighborhood, and culture. The presence or absence of a support system, the community’s response to fire behavior, and government policies and regulations are all factors that can contribute to a child’s risk of continued fire involvement. For example, exposure to peers who smoke or engage in fire activity themselves may contribute to a child’s risk for early fire experimentation. Moreover, peer support and attention can serve as significant reinforcers for juvenile firesetters (32), particularly because these children tend to grapple with social skills deficits and often are not accepted by the peer group. However influential the peer group, community response to a child’s early fire behavior has significant impact on continued involvement with fire as well. For example, educational intervention and awareness programs provided by fire departments and other community organizations may be effective in reducing the frequency and severity of children’s firesetting behavior (6,11). Over the past several years, major
insurance companies have sponsored training opportunities for parents and providers working with juvenile firesetters and associated intervention coalitions (33). The juvenile justice system plays a role in the diversion of youth who are charged with arson (34) and, in many cases, coordinates or provides behavioral health treatment (35). Delinquent youth may be at risk of firesetting but charged with other crimes. The continued allocation of public and private resources in support of interagency collaborations and networks that support fire-specific intervention efforts is crucial.

The influence of cultural values regarding fire use and the level of assimilation of families is an unexplored, but potentially significant, factor in firesetting behavior. Less industrialized societies expose children more regularly to fire use for instrumental purposes (cooking, heating, agriculture/crop maintenance). In one case anecdote, a child referred for firestarting, whose family had recently immigrated from the Dominican Republic, was receiving inconsistent messages regarding fire safety from his mother and grandfather. While his mother emphasized the importance of never using fire without proper supervision and responded with firm prohibition and consequences for this behavior, his grandfather disregarded this approach to home fire safety, noting that in their country of origin, he would be encouraged to use fire without supervision at an early age to meet developmental expectations.

As our discussion of risk factors implies, the pathways to juvenile firesetting are multiple and interactive. For example, there is no clear evidence that early fire experimentation and activity causes later fire behavior. Some of the complex factors that influence an early firestarter’s later fire behavior include: 1) the individual child’s developmental maturation, together with impulse control and behavioral inhibition, emotion regulation skills particularly pertaining to fire fascination/curiosity, anger and loneliness, and the development of social competence, 2) parenting practices including warmth, attention, monitoring, behavior control and discipline, communication, and modeling of fire behavior, and 3) peer modeling and expectations, an active and constructive response of the neighborhood and the availability of ongoing prevention and intervention collaborative efforts in the community through fire service, juvenile justice, and behavioral health networks.

Studies of juvenile firesetting have focused on the association of psychopathology to early fire experimentation and activity that are related to individual risk factors. Although over the years an emphasis has been placed on externalizing symptoms, likely because these features are more observable and intrusive to adults, research has also shown internalizing problems to be significantly related to early fire activity.

Externalizing problems including aggression and covert behavior such as lying and stealing are the most frequently cited correlates of early firesetting (13,23,26). A great deal of empirical work has associated firesetting diagnostically with conduct disorder (25,29,36,37,38). For example, when compared to a group of children who had committed murder, firesetters ages 10 through 17 were found to have higher rates of previous violent offenses, and they also were more likely than the homicidal group to carry a diagnosis of conduct disorder (36). Among clinical populations, several authors have noted that the primary reason for referral among firesetters was not for fire activity per se, but rather other externalizing symptomology (e.g., hyperactivity, truancy, running away, destructiveness, aggression) (18,21). As noted previously, some theorists suggest a developmental framework for understanding firesetting amid other kinds of disruptive behavior. Specifically, early fire activity is conceptualized as part of a deviant pathway characterized by stealing, lying, and other kinds of antisocial behaviors, only eventually ending in fire activity or arson (21). Alternatively some have suggested that fire behavior signifies an extreme form of conduct disorder (25). A recent prospective study of six 12-year-old children found that reports of firesetting increased the likelihood of delinquent behavior within the following 10 years by as much as two- to ten-fold (30).

We view conduct disorder as a much larger and heterogeneous group than children at risk of firesetting. For example, in several comparative studies of firesetting, delinquency, and other kinds of violent offenders, researchers have found no notable behavioral differences between the two groups (29,39,40). These authors determined that firesetters tended to demonstrate the same kinds of behavioral problems as children who had no previous history of fire experimentation, but who were classified as delinquent for other reasons.

Although externalizing behaviors tend to be the most widely cited and observed correlates of early fire activity, internalizing problems should not be overlooked or dismissed. Researchers have found some significant associations between fire behavior and the presence of depressive and anxious characteristics. For example, in an investigation of the personality profiles of adolescent firesetters, investigators found that these teens scored significantly higher than nonfiresetters on scales of depression, alienation, and on symptoms such as fear, worry, and withdrawal (41). In the prospective study mentioned earlier, firesetting and cruelty to animals were shown to be related to depression as well as conduct disorder, ADHD, and ODD (30). Furthermore, it has been noted that juvenile arsonists tend to have heightened suicidal thinking and an increased risk of suicide attempts (42). These children frequently have been involved in recent stressful life events including separations, divorces, and deaths in the family (13,21), all of which tend to heighten internalizing symptomology such as anxiety and depression. In an investigation of female firesetters, depression and low self-esteem were cited as significant antecedents to fire activity (43). Nevertheless, depression and anxiety are reviewed much less often in the firesetting literature than aggression and antisocial kinds of behaviors. It should be noted, however, that assessment information is frequently gleaned from parental reports, which tend to be rich in the endorsement of externalizing over internalizing behaviors. As such, while the majority of research suggests firesetting is mostly associated with disruptive behaviors, anxious and depressive symptomology should remain a clinical consideration. Of particular interest are children with a mixed constellation of externalizing and internalizing psychopathology. These are children who may have multiple diagnoses over their lifetime (e.g. ADHD, mood or anxiety disorder) who are at risk for a variety of behavioral problems (e.g. impulsivity, noncompliance, self-injury or reactive-aggression toward others). Such children may not be as likely to endorse anger as a primary motivation for firesetting and they may struggle with family environments lacking in critical parenting practices of monitoring, structured and responsive behavior management, warmth, and attention.