Several theoretical approaches or models are available to those interested in studying community responses to disaster and trauma. Unfortunately, recent experience with disasters proves that these models are overly restrictive. This chapter draws on observations following a major military air disaster to develop a new, expanded model of the impact on communities from such events. This model avoids the key restrictions of earlier models.

One critical restriction of community disaster models is the principal level of analysis that is adopted. Some models focus on individuals within the community, and aggregate individual reactions to form a picture of community response. Others view the community as a social unit that must be considered as a separate entity. These different views are usually assumed to be mutually exclusive, leading to a debate over which is more correct (Melick, 1985; Quarantelli, 1985; Powell & Penick, 1983; Tierney, 1986).

Tierney (1986) summarizes the controversy about theoretical orientation. Each orientation focuses either on a group or an individual level of analysis to the exclusion of the other. Those researchers who assume a community perspective conclude that psychological effects following disaster are minimal and short term, and that poor outcomes arise from inadequate disaster planning and resources on the part of community organizations (Quarantelli, 1985). The alternative orientation is a ‘psychological trauma’ perspective. It concludes that the catastrophic nature of the event and the subsequent trauma of dealing with the experience and its aftermath result in significant, adverse, and typically long-term psychological effects (Erikson, 1976; Lifton & Olson, 1976).