The potential of attribution theory to explain social influence processes is discussed. It is suggested that distinctiveness across topics may be an important determinant of influence by affecting both attributions to a position's external validity and the positivity of attributions to the source. In a laboratory experiment, university students read about a communicator who expressed a moderately counter‐attitudinal position for whichconsensusin the reference population was said to be low (implying minority status) or high (implying majority status). In addition, information about high or lowdistinctivenessacross topics and high or lowconsistencyover time was provided. Open‐ended attributions and judgements about the communicator and the target issue were assessed. It was predicted and found that high (vs. low) distinctiveness led to more frequent topic attributions, more positive person attributions and greater liking of the communicator. In addition, female (but not male) subjects reported higher ratings of persuasiveness and attitudes closer to the advocated position when distinctiveness was high rather than low. These preliminary results suggest that social influence research may benefit from studying effects of a source's distinctiveness across topics in addition to its behavioural consiste