Linking arson incidents on the basis of crime scene behavior

  • Pekka Santtila
  • Katarina Fritzon
  • Anna Lena Tamelander


The present study investigated the possibility of statistically linking arson cases based on consistency of behaviors from one crime scente to another. Serial and spree arson cases were studied to differentiate underlying themes and to link cases committed by the same offender. The material consisted of 248 arson cases which formed 42 series of arsons. A content analysis using 45 dichotomous variables was carried out and principal compnents (PCA) analysis was performed to identify underlying themes. Summary scores reflecting the themes were calculated. Linking effectiveness was tested with a discriminant analysis using the summary scores. The PCA analysis was successful and underlying themes which were in accordance with previous studies could be identified. Six factors were retained, in the PCA. The linking of the arson cases was possible to a satisfactory level: 33% of the cases could be correctly linked and for over 50% of the cases, the series they actually belonged to was among the ten series identified as most probable on the basis of the linking analysis. From a practical point of view, the results could be used as a basis for developing support systems for police investigations of arson.


Principal Component Analysis Discriminant Function Summary Score Discriminant Function Analysis Crime Scene 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alison, L., Bennell, C., Mokros, A., & Ormeord, D. (2002). The Personality Paradox in Offender Profiling, a theoretical review of the processes involved in deriving background characteristics from crime scene actions.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 115–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bennell, C. & Canter, D. V. (2002). Linking commercial burglary by modus operandi; tests using regression and ROC analysis.Science and Justice, 42, 1–12.Google Scholar
  3. Brennan, P. F., & Hays, B. J. (1992). The Kappa statistics for establishing interrater reliability in the secondary analysis of qualitative clinical data.Research in Nursing and Health 15, 153–158.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canter, D. (1995). Psychology of offender profiling. In R. Bull and D. Carson (eds.)Handbook of psychology in legal contexts. Chichtester England: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  5. Canter, D. & Fritzon, K. (1998) Differentiating arsonists: A model of fire setting actions and characteristics.Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 73–96.Google Scholar
  6. Canter, D. & Gregory, A. (1994). Identifying the residential location of rapists.Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 34, 169–175.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Canter, D. & Heritage, R. (1990). A multivariate model of sexual offence behavior: Developments in offender profiling' I.The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry 1, 185–212.Google Scholar
  8. Canter, D. & Larkin, P. (1993). The Environmental range of serial rapists.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 63–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Comish, D. B. & Clarke, R. V. G. (eds) (1986).The reasoning criminal: Rational, choice perspectives on offending. New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Douglas, J. E., Burgess, A. W., Burgess, A. G., & Ressler, R. K. (1992).Crime classification manual New York, NY, US: Lexington Book Macmillan, Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Farrington, D. P. (1989). Self-reported and official offending from adolescence to adulthood. In M. W. Klein (ed.)Cross-national research in self-reported crime and delinquency (pp 399–423). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Fritzon, K. (2001) An examination of the relationship between distance travelled and motivational aspects of arson.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 45–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fritzon, K., Canter, D. & Wilton, Z. (2001) The application of an action systems model to destructive behaviour: The examples of Arson and Terrorism.Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 657–690.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harnan, H. H. (1976).Modern factor analysis. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Holsti, O. R. (1969).Content analysis for the social sciences: and humanities. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  17. Häkkänen H., Puolakka, P., & Santtila P. (in press). Crime scene actions and offender characteristics in arson.Google Scholar
  18. Home Office (1999) Safer Communities: Towards effective arson control. The Report of the Arson Scoping Study.Google Scholar
  19. Jackson, H.F. (1994). Assessment of Firesetters. In M. McMurran and J. Hodge (eds.)Assessment of criminal behaviours of clients in secure settings, pp. 94–126. Jessica Kingsley: London.Google Scholar
  20. Jackson, H.F., Glass, C. & Hope, S. (1987), A functional analysis of recidivistic arson.British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 26, 175–185.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Krippendorf, K. (1980).Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. MacCulloch, M.J., Snowden, P.R., Wood P.J.W. & Mills, H. E. (1983) Sadistic fantasy, sadistie behaviour and offending.Britisch Journal of Psychiatry, 143, 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McClelland, D.C. (1980). Is Personality Consistent? In A.I. Rabin, J. Arnoff, A.M. Barclay and R.A. Zucker (Eds.)Further explorations in personality. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, S. and Fritzon, K. Functional consistency across two behavioural modalities: Firesetting and self harm in female, special hospital patients Submitted toCriminal Behaviour and Mental Health.Google Scholar
  25. Pervin, L.A. (1989).Personality Theory and research. J. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
  26. Pulkkinen, L. (1983). The search for alternatives to aggression. In A.P. Goldstein and M.H. Segal, (eds)Aggression in Global perspectives (pp. 104–144). New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  27. Santtila, P., Häkkänen, H. & Fritzon, K. (2003). Inferring the characteristics of an arsonist from crime scene behaviour: a case study in offender profiling.International Journal of Police Science and Management, 5(1) 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sapp, A.D., Huff, T. G., Gary G. P., Icove, D.J. & Horbert, P. (1994). A report of essential findings from a study of serial arsonists. Quantico, Virginia. National Centre for the Analysis of Violent Crime, FBI Academy.Google Scholar
  29. Shye, S. (1985). Nonmetric multivariate models for behavioral, action, systems. In D. Canter (Ed.)Facet, theory Approaches to social research pp 97–148). New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
  30. Shye, S., Elizur, D., & Hoffman, M. (1994).Introduction to facet theory: Content design and intrensite data analysis in behavioural research. London, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. Tabachnick, B. G. & Fidell, L.S. (2001).Using multivariate statistics. New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society for Police and Criminal Psychology 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pekka Santtila
    • 1
    • 3
  • Katarina Fritzon
    • 2
  • Anna Lena Tamelander
    • 3
  1. 1.Police College of FinlandEspooFinland
  2. 2.University of SurreySurreyUK
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyAbo Akademi UniversityTurku/AboFindlands

Personalised recommendations