A Test of the Consensus and Distinctiveness Attribution Principles in Victims of Disaster1

Abstract

The present research was designed to test the hypothesis that perceptions of consensus about the collective experience of psychological problems, as well as the distinctive presence of a community disaster, would affect attributions of externality about such problems. Specifically, it was hypothesized that (1) higher levels of consensus would be associated with greater external attributions of causality, (2) attributions would be more external if the problem began after the disaster (high distinctiveness) than before the disaster, and (3) the occurrence of the disaster would magnify the positive relationship between high consensus and external causality attributions, because of the presence of a distinctive and salient external event. These hypotheses were tested with victims of a flash flood. Results supported the interaction prediction (Hypothesis 3) for the problem of depression, but not for anxiety. In addition, for depression and anxiety, greater consensus was indirectly associated with greater externality, regardless of distinctiveness (Hypothesis 1). However, for somatization, none of the hypotheses were supported. The results are discussed in terms of the applied implications for postdisaster intervention programs to reduce psychopathology.