Copyright 1985 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

0022-35 WS5/J00.75

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

1985, Vol. 49, No. 1, 95-112

Trust in Close Relationships

John K. Rempel, John G. Holmes, and Mark P. Zanna
University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
A theoretical model describing interpersonal trust in close relationships is presented.
Three dimensions of trust are identified, based on the type of attributions drawn
about a partner's motives. These dimensions are also characterized by a developmental progression in the relationship. The validity of this theoretical perspective
was examined through evidence obtained from a survey of a heterogeneous
sample of established couples. An analysis of the Trust Scale in this sample was
consistent with the notion that the predictability, dependability, and faith components represent distinct and coherent dimensions. A scale to measure interpersonal motives was also developed. The perception of intrinsic motives in a partner
emerged as a dimension, as did instrumental and extrinsic motives. As expected,
love and happiness were closely tied to feelings of faith and the attribution of
intrinsic motivation to both self and partner. Women appeared to have more
integrated, complex views of their relationships than men: All three forms of
trust were strongly related and attributions of instrumental motives in their
partners seemed to be self-affirming. Finally, there was a tendency for people to
view their own motives as less self-centered and more exclusively intrinsic in
flavor than their partner's motives.

trust. In conjunction with this theoretical

discussion, we will also present measuring
instruments for these concepts and report a
study in which the proposed network of
associations is examined.

Trust is certainly one of the most desired

qualities in any close relationship. It is often
mentioned in conjunction with love and
commitment as a cornerstone of the ideal
relationship (C. Hendrick & S. Hendrick,
1983). Given that trust is accorded such an
esteemed position, is it surprising that there
is comparatively little focus on this concept
in the research literature. In this article a
component theory of trust will be proposed,
which takes into account the fabric of experiences in close relationships. Depending on
the stage of the relationship, the experiences
on which trust is based will change and the
interpretations those experiences receive will
also progress from a more straightforward
acceptance of behavioral evidence to the attribution of interpersonal motives. Particular
emphasis will be placed on describing the
structures and content of these motivational
attributions as they relate to the theory of

Interpersonal Trust
Deutsch (1973) has denned trust as "confidence that one will find what is desired
from another, rather than what is feared." A
more recent theoretical statement by Scanzoni
(1979) describes trust as "Actor's willingness
to arrange and repose his or her activities on
Other because of confidence that Other will
provide expected gratifications." Scanzoni also
suggests that trust requires a willingness to
place oneself in a position of risk and that
trust is not likely to appear early in a relationship because there would be little basis
in past experience for its development. Outside the specific realm of close relationships,
Rotter (1980) has considered trust as an
individual personality variable. He defines
trust as "a generalized expectancy held by an
individual that the word, promise, or statement of another individual can be relied on."
Although they are not common, some empirical studies have also explored the role of
trust in close relationships. Driscoll, Davis,

The order of the first two authors was determined

randomly. The research reported in this article was
supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council Grant to the second author. We would like to
acknowledge the helpful comments of George Levinger.
Requests for reprints should be sent to John K..
Rempel, Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario N2L 3G1.

95

96

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

and Lipetz (1972) examined the link between

love and trust. Their concern was with the
contrast between romantic and conjugal love.
The authors hypothesized that romantic love
progresses to a more mature form of conjugal
love as trust develops. According to their
thinking, trust evolves through mutually satisfying interactions and increasing confidence
in the relationship. Driscoll et al.'s 5-item
Trust Scale, which is similar to one used by
Dion and Dion (1976) in subsequent research,
consists of items dealing with areas of trust,
the ability to count on one's partner, and the
partner's considerateness. In a more recent
investigation, Larzelere and Huston (1980)
found that trust between partners was associated with love and with intimacy of selfdisclosure. Their emphasis was on dyadic
trust between intimates, which they denned
as the extent to which a person believes the
other to be benevolent and honest. The authors defined benevolence as the extent to
which an individual is genuinely interested
in a partner's welfare and motivated to seek
maximum joint gain. Honesty is, likewise,
understood as the extent to which an individual's statements of future intentions are believable.
Certain critical elements can be abstracted
from the previous theoretical and operational
definitions of trust. First, trust is seen to
evolve out of past experience and prior interaction; thus, it develops as the relationship
matures. Second, dispositional attributions
are made to the partner, such that he or she
is regarded as reliable, dependable, and concerned with providing expected rewards.
Third, as Deutsch's use of the term fear
implies, trust involves a willingness to put
oneself at risk, be it through intimate disclosure, reliance on another's promises, sacrificing present rewards for future gains, and so
on. Finally, trust is defined by feelings of
confidence and security in the caring responses of the partner and the strength of the
relationship. These considerations point to a
model of trust with three components that
reflect increasing levels of attributional abstraction. We have labeled these components
predictability, dependability and faith.
As a basic foundation for each stage of our
model, we regard trust as a generalized expectation related to the subjective probability

an individual assigns to the occurrence of

some set of future events (Rotter, 1980; Scanzoni, 1979). We have termed the most specific
and concrete stage predictability.
The predictability of a partner's behavior
is influenced by a host of factors including
such basic elements as the consistency of
recurrent behavior and the stability of the
social environment. In addition, the ability
to forecast an individual's behavior is increased if the functional reinforcements and
restraints on behavior are known. In this
regard predictability is very much akin to a
reinforcement or social exchange analysis
wherein the forecast of a partner's future
actions relies heavily on knowledge relating
to the consistency of responses in the past
and an understanding of the reward contingencies underlying potential actions (Rotter,
1980).
Thus judgments of a partner's predictability
originate from social learning experiences
based on specific behavioral sequences in
which relatively little effort is made to interpret the behavior or draw implications from
its enactment. We would expect that beliefs
about the partner's predictability would relate
to the amount of past experience in the
relationship and the degree to which this
experience suggested consistency, stability, and
control over the pattern of behavior exhibited.
The concept of predictability, however relevant to the day to day business of conducting
a relationship, is likely not the first thing that
comes to mind when attempts are made to
define trust between intimates. A more common understanding of trust is probably captured by the second component of our model,
dependability. As relationships progress there
is an inevitable shift in focus away from
assessments involving specific behaviors, to
an evaluation of the qualities and characteristics attributed to the partner. Thus trust is
placed in a person, not their specific actions.
For example, is the partner a reliable person,
someone who is honest and can be counted
on? The dispositional inferences that develop
in response to such questions are likely to
depend heavily on an accumulation of evidence from a more limited and diagnostic
set of experiences involving risk and personal
vulnerability. Self-disclosure theorists in particular have emphasized the notion that trust

TRUST

is built gradually through repeated encounters

involving the potential for rejection or ridicule
(Altaian & Taylor, 1974; Rubin, 1973). Of
course, the social scripts derived from the
demands of impression management and the
rules of reciprocal exchange act to protect
partners and minimize risk in the earlier
stages of a relationship (Holmes, 1981). By
necessity, then, trust that transcends a more
rudimentary sense of predictability will typically emerge only in later stages of a dating
relationship.
Even in more established relationships, an
interpersonal environment possessing the potential for risk and uncertainty is necessary
for the expression of the type of responsive
behavior that fosters trust. For instance, partners may hope to protect themselves from
risks by avoiding contentious issues or by
following short-term rules of exchange to
govern their contributions. However, these
defensive orientations eliminate diagnostic
opportunities for learning about the dispositional qualities of the partner that relate to
trust. For someone to be able to make the
attribution that another person cares and can
be trusted, there must exist the possibility for
the other person to show that he or she does
not care (cf. Strickland, 1958). Thus, an
emphasis on experiences that involve personal
risk is essential in understanding the growth
of feelings of security and trust.
From this discussion, it can be seen that
the second component of our model, dependability, is related in significant ways to the
first component, predictability. In particular,
a partner's predictability is an important
source of evidence from which dispositional
attributions can be drawn. By the same token,
dependability does not subsume predictability.
Rather, attributions of a partner's dependability are weighted most heavily by the subclass of behaviors that involves personal vulnerability and conflict of interests. Thus dependability goes beyond a prediction based
on the stability of recurrent behaviors and
involves attributions about a particularly diagnostic set of those behaviors (Reeder &
Brewer, 1979), such that they are seen to
reflect the partner's dispositional qualities of
trustworthiness.
These first two elements of trust, predictability and dependability, require a consider-

97

ation of the impact of past experience and

the reliability of previous evidence. In relationships, as in life, however, the future is
filled with novel situations and circumstances
where past or present experience is not necessarily an accurate barometer. In times to
come, a relationship may be faced with new
stresses and forces, which could not have
been anticipated and for which no past encounters reasonably correspond: people mature, goals and values can change, and feelings
do not always remain constant. In order to
capture the essence of a trust that is not
securely rooted in past experience, we will
use the term faith. In religious contexts faith
describes the aspect of a belief that must go
beyond the available evidence to accept a
given supposition as truth. Beliefs are held in
the presence of equally plausible alternatives,
and pertinent but inconclusive evidence is
acknowledged as insufficient to either confirm
or refute them. Convictions are thus held and
acted on in the present, with the confident
expectation that future events will prove them
to be correct.
In the same way, there are no guarantees
that the hopes and desires invested in a close
relationship will ever be realized. Given that
a successful relationship is not a guaranteed
proposition, it follows that continuing commitment to, and belief in the relationship
requires, to one extent or another, a "leap of
faith". In effect individuals will be constantly
called upon to exert closure on their feelings
by setting their doubts aside, even though the
evidence warranting such emotional risks can
never be fully conclusive. Thus faith reflects
an emotional security on the part of individuals, which enables them to go beyond the
available evidence and feel, with assurance,
that their partner will be responsive and
caring despite the vicissitudes of an uncertain
future.
As we will discuss shortly, we believe that
perceptions of such caring develop from an
interpersonal attribution process that centers
on particular interpretations of a partner's
motives and intentions (Kelley, 1979). Thus
with faith, the focus is not on specific behaviors and goes beyond even an emphasis on
dispositional attributions.
In suggesting that faith goes beyond the
available evidence, however, it would be er-

98

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

roneous to imply that past experience plays

no role. Clearly one would expect that a
partner's past predictability and dependability
would provide an important basis for generalizing to future situations. Thus predictability
and especially dependability should be related
to faith. These are not, however, the only
sources providing a foundation for feelings of
faith. Personal dynamics of the sort suggested
by object-relations theory (Barry, 1970) no
doubt also play a role in determining the
degree to which someone is capable of trusting
another. Personal security and self-esteem,
for example, contribute to the extent to which
a person is willing to take emotional risks in
uncertain circumstances. It is also the case
that not all examples of predictability or
attributions of dependability will contribute
to feelings of faith. Faith does not fully
subsume or contain these factors. Rather it
is largely those elements of predictability and
dependability that are seen to reflect the
partner's underlying motives of caring and
responsiveness that will foster confidence and
emotional security in the face of an objectively
uncertain future.
Each component in our model of trust
reflects a different perspective or basis from
which subjective probability judgments for a
partner's future behavior can be made. Predictability, dependability, and faith are seen
as arising out of different levels of cognitive
and emotional abstraction. The model is hierarchical, but only in the sense that we
suspect that there is a developmental progression in terms of the time and emotional
investment required to establish each component and in terms of the level of attributional abstraction each demands.
Although we do not consider these components to be mutually exclusive, we do
believe that the dominance of one perspective
over another has very different implications
for the quality of the relationship. We expect
a strong correlation between mature forms
of love and faith, because both feelings directly
reflect the emotional history of a relationship
over a longer period of time. A weaker but
still substantial association is predicted for
the dependability factor. The attributions required for this component of trust provide
an important basis for love, but are not
sufficient to account for the relationship-

specific qualities inherent in faith. The relation between love and predictability is expected to be weak, given the developmental
progression we have described and the notion
that the origins of love reside in the attributional process, not simply in rewarding behavior (Kelley, 1979).
Attributing Motivation
Our analysis of trust is based on the notion
that people attempt to understand their partners in terms of acts, dispositions, and motives
that would predict positive responses. This
process, we suggest, is captured in progressively more symbolic terms as relationships
develop. As feelings of trust become more
established and rooted, they depend more
heavily on beliefs about the partners' motivations, and less on direct codings at the
behavioral level. Therefore we now turn to a
discussion of these motives and the implications they have for trust and for the success
of the relationship in general.
Our analysis is immediately handicapped
in that it stresses the importance of attributing
motives to partners for maintaining the relationship when no clear conceptual system
for categorizing such motives exists. Unfortunately, existing systems that might be relevant to this issue focus more directly on the
qualities of the resources exchanged during
transactions than on the motives inferred
from the behavior. For instance, U. G. Foa
and E. B. Foa (1974) proposed that rewards
can be classified into six content areas on a
circumplex: love, services, goods, money, information, and status. This system has proven
useful in studying the rules of the exchange
process (Holmes, 1981), but it is not at all
clear that these resource categories can be
translated into a corresponding set of more
latent motivational states.
Attribution theorists have typically used
the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction to classify
task motivations. In the task motivation literature, intrinsic rewards are those inherent
in the activity (e.g., the satisfaction of creating
a painting). Thus the activity generates its
own rewards. A direct translation to a close
relationship implies that the relationship itself
generates its own rewards. Extrinsic rewards
are not inherent in the activity but result as

TRUST

a consequence of it. Thus, the activity is not

necessarily rewarding in and of itself but is a
means to another end (e.g., painting for monetary gain). In reference to close relationships,
the relationship is seen as a vehicle for obtaining desired rewards. It should be pointed
out that most behaviors can be interpreted
as reflecting any motive orientation. The
critical element in the attribution of motives
is the interpretation given the behavior or
event.
These categories were applied to the area
of close relationships in a study by Seligman,
Fazio, and Zanna (1980). In this research,
dating couples were induced to perceive their
motivations for involvement in their relationships as being dominated by either intrinsic
or extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic reasons were
related to rewards received from others, outside of the relationship, but mediated by
involvement with the partner. Examples of
these rewards include social status and respect,
access to new opportunities and activities,
and the acquisition of new friends or business
connections. Intrinsic explanations were denned as the set of rewards directly mediated
by involvement with the partner. The subjects
then completed Rubin's Loving and Liking
Scale (Rubin, 1973). The results showed that
those subjects who had been influenced to
attribute their involvement to extrinsic reasons had lower scores on the Loving scale.
Those subjects who had been induced to
attribute intrinsic reasons showed scores on
the Loving scale equal to the control group.
Thus, the self-attribution of extrinsic motivations apparently served to undermine the
value of the relationship, presumably through
the use of a discounting logic.
The translation of the intrinsic-extrinsic
concepts from the task motivation literature
seems so direct and straightforward, that it
masks an important and complicating distinction. In the task motivation paradigm
there is a single individual involved in the
activity, whereas relationships, by definition,
require two participants. Given that a person
considers the relationship to be of value in
and of itself, the question still remains, of
value to whom? The individual may be motivated largely by the interpersonal rewards
received from the partner or, conversely, the
relationship may be valued precisely because

99

it is rewarding to both. In the first case, we

regard the motives as instrumental in nature
and distinguish them from the second case,
which we consider to be a more accurate
representation of intrinsic motives. Instrumental motives may be served by a host of
more or less explicit rewards partners provide
for each other, such as direct services, goods,
praise, sex, and support. In contrast, examples
of rewards most likely to be associated with
intrinsic attributions include shared enjoyment of an activity, mutual demonstrations
of affection and a sense of closeness, social
involvement as a couple, and the warmth
and joy associated with satisfying a partner's
needs.
The conceptual distinction between instrumental and intrinsic motivation is not new
to the literature on close relationships. Clark
and Mills (1979), for example, distinguished
between exchange and communal relationships. In the former case, individuals expect
to receive a fair return for any contributions
they might make to another, their behavior
within the relationship is essentially a means
to an end and is governed by the rules of
social exchange. In communal relationships,
however, partners often respond directly to
each other's needs and react negatively if a
partner's positive behavior is phrased in terms
of a social exchange.
In a similar vein, Kelley (1979) has suggested that people in relationships code their
interactions in terms of whether partners
demonstrate the tendency to deviate from
instrumental, self-interested concerns. Partners will be seen as motivated by caring and
love only to the extent that they are viewed
as being responsive to the others' needs, at
some personal cost in terms of sacrificing
more purely egocentric, selfish motives. Although Kelley is the first person to articulate
the process by which such interpersonal attributions of responsiveness are made, other
authors have also stressed the notion that the
pleasure derived from gratifying the needs of
an intimate partner may be intrinsically rewarding (Blau, 1964; Huesmann & Levinger,
1976; Larzelere & Huston, 1980; Lerner,
1977). Through the development of interdependent goals and empathic identification,
the partner's happiness becomes part of the
individual's own reward system. Intrinsic

100

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

forms of motivation thus are often reflected

in evidence that the two people see themselves
as one couple. In Lerner's terms, they have
an "identity" relationship (Lerner, 1977).
In summary, we are proposing that three
general types of attributions can be made in
the motivational domain: extrinsic, instrumental, and intrinsic. Each of these in turn
could be used to describe both people's selfperceptions and impressions of their partners'
motives. The judgments made on these dimensions are hypothesized to have important
implications for the psychological climate in
a relationship, including feelings of trust and
love, as we discuss later.
A Symbolic Analysis of Perceived Motives
The various motive states we have described
are not seen as independent of each other.
By following the logic of discounting rules, if
extrinsic reasons are particularly salient, the
perceived strength of instrumental and intrinsic motives will diminish. Similarly, attributions to particularly dominant instrumental
motives would serve to weaken recourse to
intrinsic explanations. Intrinsic motives are
hypothesized to be most strongly related to
love and happiness, because they best reflect
unselfish concern and caring for another
without explicit expectations of direct personal gain. In fact, the perception that both
self and partner are involved in the relationship because it is of value in and of itself has
been seen as a necessary step for feelings of
love to occur (Kelley, 1979).
The perception of instrumental motives is
complex in that it carries with it a number
of messages. Instrumental attributions result
when rewards are seen to constitute selfserving ends obtained via the relationship. In
this sense a discounting logic would lead one
to question how valuable the relationship
would remain should the rewards no longer
be forthcoming. It would also act to highlight
the social exchange aspects of the relationship
and thereby undermine attributions of love
(Clark & Mills, 1979; Holmes, 1981; Kelley,
1979). By the same token, the attribution of
instrumental motives may also impart positive
informaion about the relationship. In suggesting that one is personally motivated by
the rewards provided by one's partner, there

is the implicit recognition that this partner is

valuable and likeable. Thus if the partner is
positively regarded for his or her appearance,
wit, or sensitivity, these attitudes validate the
person's worth as someone who is lovable. In
the same vein, it is self-affirming to believe
that a partner is motivated by the instrumental rewards one is personally providing. This
implies that your partner is involved in the
relationship because you are the type of
individual who has valuable characteristics.
The consequences of seeing a behavior as
instrumental in origin is, thus, largely a matter
of which message is most salient. The attribution of instrumental motivation may reinforce feelings of love and liking for the partner,
but the overall correlation with love will
likely be moderate due to the opposing influence of the discounting logic (Kelley, 1979).
Finally, as the results from Seligman et al.
(1980) imply, the salience of extrinsic motivations is presumed to undercut the attribution of intrinsic motives and, hence, lower
feelings of love for the partner. Thus we
predict a negative correlation between love
and the attribution of extrinsic motives to
either the self or the partner.
A similar hierarchical pattern is also anticipated for the association between trust and
motivation. In particular our analysis suggests
that feelings of faith are most relevant when
events cannot be predicted with any certainty.
For this reason faith must rest on more
general attributions that one's partner is motivated by a concern for the well-being of the
relationship itself rather than by the particular
rewards one is presently able to provide.
Consequently we anticipate a strong positive
correlation between feelings of faith and the
perception that a partner is intrinsically motivated. Instrumental motives are expected to
have a weaker association with faith and the
attribution of extrinsic motives is expected
to undermine such feelings altogether. The
results for dependability and predictability
are expected to follow the same pattern but
show weaker correlations, especially with intrinsic motives.
Method
Overview
The present study was designed to provide information
relevant to the theoretical perspectives we have presented.

TRUST
To accomplish this we will relate the trust and motive
constructs to each other and to feelings of love and
satisfaction within a close relationship. Scales measuring
these variables were administered to a heterogeneous
sample of 47 dating and married couples.

Subjects
Forty-two couples volunteered as subjects at the Ontario
Science Centre in Toronto, Ontario. Five further couples
were contacted directly by the experimenter, creating a
total sample of 47 couples. Of the total sample, 30
couples were married, 5 were cohabiting, and 12 were
dating exclusively. The mean ages were 31 years for males
and 29 years for females. The average duration of relationships was 9.1 years. The average number of children
was 2.4 among the 19 couples who had children.

Procedure
A sign promoting the study was posted in the main
hall of the Ontario Science Centre. Couples who responded
and came to the small amphitheatre where the study was
taking place were given preceded packets containing the
questionnaires and instruction sheets. Subjects were asked
to complete the forms independently without comparing
answers with their partner. Completed questionnaires
were placed back in the envelope and returned to the
experimenter. Couples were then thanked and given an
opportunity to receive feedback once results from the
study became available.
It was quickly discovered that subjects at the Science
Centre were hesitant to commit themselves for the half
hour required to complete the questionnaire. Therefore,
the study was ostensibly divided and presented as two
separate but related studies. The sign was changed to
advertise a two-part study with the first part taking 20
min and the second part requiring 10 min. Of the 42
couples taking part at the Science Centre, only 2 did not
complete the entire questionnaire.

Materials
The present study is part of a larger project that used
a questionnaire composed of six scales. Demographic
data consisted of sex, age, occupation, education level,
length of relationship, and number and ages of any
children. The presentation of the two groups of scales
comprising Parts I and 2 of the study was counterbalanced. Each person within a couple received the scales
ordered in an identical manner. Four of these scales are
relevant to the present research report. The remaining
two scales were part of a separate project dealing with
issues of power and means of influence in relationships.
Rubin's Loving and Liking Scale. The Rubin Loving
and Liking Scale is an 18-item instrument, with 9 items
designed to measure love and the other 9 items created
to measure liking (Rubin, 1973). Subjects were asked to
indicate agreement with statements about their partner
on a 9-point scale ranging from "not at all true" to
"completely true". Following the Loving and Liking Scale
were three global measures of the happiness, satisfaction
and success experienced at the present time within the

101

relationship. Subjects responded on an 8-point scale

ranging from "not at all (happy)" to "extremely (happy)".
Trust Scale. The 26-item Trust Scale was designed
to measure levels of trust within close interpersonal
relationships. Items were tailored to represent the predictability, dependability, and faith components discussed
earlier. A descriptive prototype of each of the three
theoretical components was created, and individual items
were composed to sample representative content areas
within each domain. Thus, items designed to measure
predictability emphasize the consistency and stability of
a partner's specific behaviors, based on past experience.
Dependability items concentrate on the dispositional
qualities of the partner, which warrant confidence in the
face of risk and potential hurt (e.g., honesty, reliability,
etc.). Finally, items constructed to measure faith are
centered on feelings of confidence in the relationship and
the responsiveness and caring expected from the partner
in the face of an uncertain future.
Several of these items were obtained from the Interpersonal Relationship Scale (IRS) created by Schlein,
Guerney, and Stover (Guerney, 1977). Table 1 presents
the items and the designated category for which they
were constructed (see Table 2 for item analysis). Participants were required to respond to statements about the
truthworthiness of their partner on a 7-point scale ranging
from 3 ("strongly disagree"), through 0 ("neutral"), to
3 ("strongly agree").
Motivation Scale. This scale was created to assess
participants' perceptions of the reasons for their involvement in their relationship from the perspective of the
intrinsic, instrumental, and extrinsic motivational categories discussed earlier. Again, prototypes of the three
categories were used to generate new items to add to
those obtained from the scale created by Seligman et al.
(1980). The various reasons that could be used to explain
involvement in the relationship were first classified as to
their source. If the rewards are obtained exclusively
outside the relationship (e.g., parental approval) they
were classified as extrinsic. Items that sampled rewards
obtained within the relationship were broken down into
those that focus on the benefits received by one partner
(promoting instrumental attributions) and those that
emphasized mutual satisfaction, empathic concern and
the value of the relationship to both partners (intrinsic
motivation). Scale items and category designations are
listed in Table 3.
Respondents were required to complete the 24-item
scale twice (see Table 3). In counterbalanced order,
subjects were asked to describe their own motives for
maintaining their relationship and to infer these motives
for their partner. On the Partner's Motivation Scale (see
Table 4) preliminary instructions read, "Put yourself in
the place of your partner, and indicate the extent to
which he/she believes the following reasons play a role
in your current relationship. In other words, answer the
following questions as you feel your partner would answer
them." Then the same set of items was additionally
prefaced with the phrase, "How I feel my partner would
answer. . . ." Subjects responded to all items by circling
a number from 0 to 8 on a scale that extended from
plays no role at all to plays a major role. On the Personal
Motivation Scale (see Table 5) the items were prefaced
with the phrase, "I have a relationship with my partner
because . . ."

102

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

Results
Overview
We regard this research as a first step in
verifying our theoretical notions, by seeking

to establish that the particular pattern of

relations we have hypothesized for our concepts does in fact exist. To accomplish this,
it is important to first ensure that our scales
appropriately reflect the constructs we are

Table 1
Trust Scale
Item

Designated*
category

1. When we encounter difficult and unfamiliar new circumstances I would not feel worried or
threatened by letting my partner do what he/she wanted.

2. I can count on my partner to be concerned about my welfare.

3. In general, my partner does things in a variety of different ways. He/she almost never sticks to
one way of doing things.

4. My partner has proven to be trustworthy and I am willing to let him/her engage in activities
which other partners find too threatening.

5. I am familiar with the patterns of behavior my partner has established and I can rely on him/
her to behave in certain ways.

6. Even when I don't know how my partner will react, I feel comfortable telling him/her anything
about myself; even those things of which I am ashamed.

7. Though times may change and the future is uncertain; I know my partner will always be ready
and willing to offer me strength and support.

8. 1 am never certain that my partner won't do something that I dislike or will embarrass me.

9. My partner is very unpredictable. I never know how he/she is going to act from one day to the
next.

10. I feel very uncomfortable when my partner has to make decisions which will affect me
personally.

11. I have found that my partner is unusually dependable, especially when it conies to things which
are important to me.

12. My partner behaves in a very consistent manner.

13. In my relationship with my partner, the future is an unknown which I worry about.

14. Whenever we have to make an important decision in a situation we have never encountered
before, I know my partner will be concerned about my welfare.

15. Even if I have no reason to expect my partner to share things with me, I still feel certain that
he/she will.

16. I can rely on my partner to react in a positive way when I expose my weaknesses to him/her.

17. I usually know how my partner is going to act. He/she can be counted on.

18. When I share my problems with my partner, I know he/she will respond in a loving way even
before I say anything.

19. In our relationship I have to keep alert or my partner might take advantage of me.

20. I am certain that my partner would not cheat on me, even if the opportunity arose and there
was no chance that he/she would get caught.

21. I sometimes avoid my partner because he/she is unpredictable and I fear saying or doing
something which might create conflict.

22. I can rely on my partner to keep the promises he/she makes to me.

23. I would never guarantee that my partner and 1 will still be together and not have decided to end
our relationship 10 yeare from now.

24. When I am with my partner I feel secure in facing unknown new situations.

25. Even when my partner makes excuses which sound rather unlikely, I am confident that he/she
is telling the truth.

26. I am willing to let my partner make decisions for me.

F = faith; D = dependability; P = predictability.

TRUST

attempting to measure. The discussion of the

results will begin with a presentation of two
item analyses used to refine our measuring
instruments. This will be followed by an
examination of the reliabilities and relations
among the subscales. Finally, and most important, proposals developed from our model
of trust will be explored by considering the
associations among the constructs of love,
trust, perceptions of the partner's motives,
and personal motives.
Item Analysis Procedures
It should be noted at the outset that the
items used on our measures of trust and
Table 2
Trust Scale (Item Analysis)

Item

Designated*
category

SD

Corrected
item-total
correlation

Factor
loading

.44
.59
.50
.48
.60
.58
.43

.43
.66
.67
.66
.69
.74
.46

.35
.45
.37
.59
.48

.47
.51
.54
.55
.76

.33
.58
.39
.55
.38

.49
.84
.52
.50
.58

.23
.50
.19
.21

.14
.34
.26
.11
.34
.43
.37
.32
.08

Faith
6
7
14
15
16
18
24

F
F
F
F
F
F
F

5.1
6.2
6.3
6.0
5.6
5.6
5.8

1.8
1.1
0.9
1.3
1.5
1.5
1.4

Dependability
4
11
20
22
25

D
D
D
D
D

5.7
5.7
5.6
6.2
5.9

1.2
1.5
2.0
1.2
1.5

Predictability
8
9
10
12
21

P
P
D
P
P

F
D
P
P
F
P
D
F
D

4.6
5.7
5.0
5.5
5.2

2.1
1.7
1.9
1.4
2.0

Items omitted
2
3
5
13
17
19
23
26

5.4
6.4
4.0
5.8
5.2
5.8
6.3
4.2
4.6

1.4
1.3
1.9
1.1
2.0
1.1
1.3
2.4
1.8

.47

.41
.49
.35
.16

F = faith; D = dependability; P = predictability.

" 7-point scale, 7 = strongly agree.

103

motivation were constructed to conform to

specific theoretical guidelines. The theoretical
framework formed the basis for both the
generation of items and their initial classification into subscales. This deductive approach
to scale construction is more conservative
than an inductive one involving the selection
of a few items from a large sample pool
(Burisch, 1984). However, in the strictest
sense, our sample of 94 subjects was not large
enough to guarantee stable results with certain
analytic procedures, including factor analysis.
For this reason we will focus primarily on
the results of item analyses which we used as
guidelines to refine our scales, and will employ
very conservative criteria for deciding when
an item will be reclassified to another subscale
or dropped altogether.1
Two types of analyses were used. In the
first analysis each scale item was correlated
with the total of the remaining items on the
subscale for which it was created as well as
with the total for each of the other two
subscales. With such corrected item-total correlations it is possible to see how well each
item fits with its designated subscale compared with the other subscales. The second
procedure consisted of a factor analysis (common factors solution) with the number of
possible factors limited to three. An oblique
rotation was used because the subscales reflect
variations on the common construct of trust
and are therefore expected to be moderately
correlated.
Our first goal in conducting these two
analyses was to detect and eliminate any
items that clearly failed to measure trust
adequately. To accomplish this, those items
in the item analysis which did not correlate
at the .30 level or greater with any subscale
were eliminated. (In each case, these items
were also those which had factor loadings
less than .40).
Second, in order to create relatively distinct
subscales, those items that failed to adequately
differentiate between the various categories
were also considered for removal. However,
rather than eliminating potentially relevant
items outright, a more conservative strategy
was adopted whereby an item would be omit' Complete item analysis results are available from the
authors on request.

104

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

Table 3
Motivation Scale

Item

Designated*
category

1. We are close and intimate. We have special ways of demonstrating affection and letting each
other know how we feel.

2. He/she keeps me informed of things I should know about. He/she is a good source of
knowledge.

3. He/she is someone my parents would approve of. He/she is well liked by my friends. People are
impressed by my choice.

4. He/she accepts me as I am. He/she makes me feel important. I get praise and compliments
from him/her.

5. We have a rewarding intellectual relationship. We have meaningful discussions which are

stimulating and enriching. We enjoy matching wits.

6. He/she has the right connections. His/her friends and relatives could be of benefit to my career
and future aspirations.

7. We have a sharing relationship. We can both freely share our ideas, feelings and hopes.

8. We love one another and care more for each other than for ourselves.

9. He/she does favours for me. He/she does what I want. He/she meets my needs, (i.e., sexually,
etc.)

10. He/she provides security for me. With him/her I feel safe and protected.

11. We are each others best friends. When we need someone, we have each other. I feel incomplete
without him/her.

12. He/she has the qualities I've always wanted in a partner (i.e., personality, talents, looks, etc.).

13. Eventually he/she will allow me to have the kind of luxurious lifestyle I have always dreamed of
(i.e., nice house, family, financial security, etc.).

14. Through him/her I can meet new and interesting people. I can make new friends and mingle
with an exciting new crowd.

15. With him/her around, I have someone to help lend a hand, (with household duties, work, etc.).
Things go a lot easier when you've got someone to help you.

16. He/she belongs to a number of prestigious organizations and knows a lot of important people.
Someday, he/she will be very important in the community and I would like to share that
importance with him/her.

17. He/she gives me emotional support. He/she is concerned & ready to listen; someone stable I
can hang on to.

18. We always have fun together. We do exciting, crazy things and keep socially involved with
others as a couple.

19. We share the same interests and concerns. We have the same attitudes and values (i.e., religion,
politics, sense of humour, etc.).

20. People think more highly of me since I began seeing him/her. My friends envy me and I am
getting a lot more attention.

21. He/she lets me be myself. He/she doesn't tie me down. In his/her company I am free to grow
and fulfill myself as an individual.

22. He/she gives me companionship. He/she keeps me from being lonely. I have someone I can talk
to.

23. He/she lets me get away from my past. With him/her I don't have the financial or family
hassles I had when I was unattached.

24. It gives me joy to offer him/her support. It gives me pleasure to make my partner happy and
return the love he/she gives to me.

" I = intrinsic; R = instrumental; E = extrinsic.

105

TRUST

ted only if it failed the criteria on both

methods of analysis. The criterion for each
method required that an item appear on its
designated scale with a correlation or factor
loading that was at least .10 units greater
than the next largest value on the other scales.
(Although a difference of. 10 may not appear
particularly large it must be remembered that
the various subscales are not expected to be
completely independent.)
Finally, when items shifted from their proposed subscale to another subscale both the
item analysis and factor structure were required to be in agreement with the shift. If
only one scale suggested a shift, the item was
either retained as originally designated or
eliminated, as indicated by the results of the
other analysis.
Table 4
Partner's Motivation Scale (Item Analysis)

Item

Designated1
category

M"

SD

I
I
I
I
I
R
I
I

4
9
10
15
21
22

R
R
R
R
R
R

6.0
4.8
6.1
5.9
6.0
5.8
4.5
5.4
6.5

Corrected
item-total
correlation

Factor
loading

.50
.39
.56
.49
.67
.62
.50
.41
.44

.59
.51
.61
.52
.75
.69
.56
.48
.51

.58
.58
.50
.42
.58
.57

.64
.67
.55
.50
.57
.61

.60
.47
.52
.64
.49

.68
.56
.73
.72
.54

.25
.39
.34
.46

.18
.41
.23
.39

1.7
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.7
2.0
2.1
1.7
1.5

Instrumental
5.6
5.4
5.6
4.6
5.2
5.8

2.1
2.1
2.0
2.5
2.0
1.8

Extrinsic

6
13
14
16
20

E
E
E
E
E

2
3
12
23

R
E

1.3
3.3
2.5
1.4
2.3

1.8
2.7
2.1
1.8
2.1

Items omitted

5.2
4.9
5.7
3.2

1.9
2.5
1.6
2.8

" I = intrinsic; R = instrumental; E = extrinsic.

0 to 8-point scale, 8 = plays a major role.

Item

Designated1
category

M*

SD

Corrected
item-total
correlation

Factor
loading

.44
.40
.58
.30
.34
.54

.50
.66
.60
.43
.38
.36

.43
.53
.49
.35
.52

.44
.59
.53
.54
.50

.40
.69
.51
.58
.44
.58
.57
.51

.48
.74
.62
.63
.52
.63
.57
.53

.37
.51
.41
.46
.39

.32
.36
.32
.42
.40

Intrinsic

1
5
7
18
19
24

6.1
5.2
6.5
4.6
5.6
6.9

1.5
1.9
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.4

Instrumental

4
9
17
21
22

R
R
R
R
R

5.9
5.4
6.1
5.4
5.7

1.7
2.1
1.8
2.2
1.9

Extrinsic

Intrinsic

1
5
7
8
11
17
18
19
24

Table 5
Personal Motivation Scale (Item Analysis)

3
6
13
14
15
16
20
23

E
E
E
E
R
E
E
E

4.5
1.4
2.6
2.6
4.2
1.2
1.8
2.5

2.5
2.1
2.7
2.2
2.6
1.8
2.0
2.6

Items omitted

2
8
10
11
12

R
I
R
I
R

5.3
6.1
5.3
6.1
5.6

1.9
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.8

' I = intrinsic; R = instrumental; E = extrinsic.

b
0 to 8-point scale, 8 = plays a major role.

Refinement of the Trust Scale

The trust scale was refined using the procedures outlined above. First Items 3, 5, and
26 were immediately eliminated because they
did not correlate with any subscale. Second,
Items 1, 2, 13, 17, 19, and 23 failed to
adequately discriminate between subscales
and were, therefore, also removed. Finally,
item 10 appeared to correspond best with
measures of predictability. Except for this
one shift the remaining 16 items stayed in
the categories for which they had been created. As well, equal numbers of items were
eliminated from each subscale and the items
that were dropped in no way precipitated a

106

J. REMPEL, I. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

change of meaning for either the faith or

dependability subscale. The items remaining
in the predictability measure, however, require
some comment. As a reading of the items
will indicate, this subscale seems, indeed, to
reflect how predictable individuals find their
partners to be. The emphasis however, tends
to be on the partner's lack of predictability,
or what one might call volatility. The picture
that emerges prompts us to suggest that this
subscale leads individuals to focus on the
potentially unpleasant consequences of their
inability to accurately anticipate their partner's negative behavior.

Refinement of the Motivation Scale

The Motivation Scale was completed twice
by respondents, once with reference to their
own personal motivations, and once from the
perspective of their partner. The psychological
implications of these different perspectives warrant separate analyses for each response set.
We will begin with the analysis of people's
beliefs about their partner's motives. Following the same procedure used for the Trust
Scale, Item 2, an instrumental item, was
omitted by virtue of its low correlations with
all three (intrinsic, instrumental, and extrinsic) subscales. Further, Item 12, also an instrumental item, and Items 3 and 23, both
intrinsic measures, were eliminated due to
their inability to adequately differentiate
among the three components. Item 17 shifted
from the instrumental subscale to the intrinsic
measure. This item deals with receiving emotional support from one's partner. Because
the intrinsic construct was intended to reflect
feelings of togetherness or "we-ness" as well
as a theme of emotional intimacy, the inclusion of Item 17 seems acceptable. These
modifications did not lead us to consider a
change of meaning for any subscale. In general, then, the results of the item analysis for
the scales measuring perceptions of a partner's
motivation were reassuringly consistent with
our theoretical constructs.
The analysis for the scale on which respondents indicated their own motives, however,
did not produce as precise a set of results.
The subscale measuring extrinsic motives was
the exception. No items were omitted and

Item 15, originally an instrumental item, was

added. The distinction between the intrinsic
and instrumental scales, on the other hand,
is much less exact. Of the five items that
were eliminated, four (Items 8 and 11 from
the intrinsic scale, and Items 2 and 12 from
the instrumental scale) loaded closely on both
these scales. The fifth item, Item 10, loaded
equally well on all three dimensions. Overall,
this outcome seems to indicate that, when
defining one's own motivations for maintaining a close relationship, instrumental motives
are more closely aligned with purely intrinsic
motives than when one is judging the motives
of one's partner. By the same token, these
two classes of motivation are certainly not
undifferentiated. Thus, we chose to present
the correlations that result using each subscale
separately, bearing in mind the similarity
between them.
The Structure of Feelings in
Close Relationships
The scaling results from the item analyses
were used to derive a new set of measures
for each subject.2 The scores for males and
females on the following subscales were then
placed in a correlation matrix: (a) the faith,
dependability, and predictability subscales for
the trust measure, (b) the intrinsic, instrumental, and extrinsic subscales measuring
perceptions of a partner's motivations, (c) the
three components of personal motivation,
and (d) the Rubin Love Scale.
The correlations for men and women separately showed remarkable similarity in the
pattern of results. Therefore, the findings
from the overall analysis will be reported,
except when the results warrant the presentation of separate analyses for men and
women. Table 6 presents the results of the
combined analysis. The results will be discussed beginning with a consideration of the
intercorrelations of the various subscales and
will be followed by an examination of how
the constructs of love, trust, perceptions of

1
An examination of the results derived from the a
priori subscales, in comparison with results achieved
using the revised subscales, revealed that differences
between the two did not warrant any changes in the
major conclusions.

107

TRUST

Table 6
Correlations Between Measures of Love, Trust, Perceptions of Partner's Motives, and Personal Motives
Measure

(.77)
.34*

(.76)

(.69)
.48"
.11

(.76)
.30*

Trust
I. Love
2. Faith
3. Dependability
4. Predictability

(.86)

.46"
.25*
.12

(.80)
.46**
.27*

(.72)
.28*

(.70)

Partner's motives
5. Intrinsic
6. Instrumental
7. Extrinsic

.49**
.52**
.07

.52**
.17
-.03

.23*
.19
-.15

.10
.06
-.16

(.82)
.47**
.02

Personal motives
8. Intrinsic
9. Instrumental
10. Extrinsic

.55**
.44**
.05

.41**
.41**
-.08

.18
.23*
-.03

.04
.27*
-.24*

.77"
.32*
-.08

.44**
.53"
.31*

.09
.20
.63"

(.79)

Note. Cronbach's Alphas in parentheses.

*p<.05. "p<.001.

one's partner's motivations and personal motivations are related.

Subscale associations and reliabilities. To
begin with then, we will examine how the
subscales are related to each other. The loving,
liking, and happiness measures are all strongly
related for both sexes, as would be expected
(correlations ranged from r = .50 to r = .64,
p < .001). The Cronbach alphas for the loving,
liking, and happiness scales are .86, .85 and
.92, respectively. The strong correlations between these measures allow us to present a
rather precise picture of the results by focusing
solely on the Love Scale in the remaining
discussion.
Turning next to the Trust Scale, the overall
Cronbach alpha was .81, with subscale reliabilities of .80, .72, and .70 for the faith,
dependability, and predictability subscales,
respectively. In general the three subscales
were moderately correlated, as we expected
(r = .46, p < .001 for faith and dependability,
r = .27, p < .05 for faith and predictability,
and r = .28, p < .05 for dependability and
predictability). However, in this case the results for men and women showed distinct
patterns. The three subscales were associated
for women, in a relatively ordered fashion.
Faith and dependability were strongly correlated, r = .61, p < .001, as were faith and

predictability, r = .48, p < .001, and dependability and predictability, r = .44, p < .05.
For men, however, only a weak correlation
between faith and dependability was apparent
r = .33, p < .05. Essentially, it appears that
the three aspects of trust are relatively autonomous for men but not for women.
The overall reliability of the Motivation
Scale was .83 for attributions about partners'
motives, and .80 for inferences about personal
motives. The subscale reliabilities were reasonably high for the former estimates (.82,
.77, .76), and somewhat lower for self-evaluations (.69, .76, .79). Overall, the general
reliability pattern is quite respectable given
the small number of items in each subscale.
The subscale associations for the motive
scales followed the predicted hierarchical pattern rather nicely. The intrinsic and instrumental inferences about the partner's motives
were positively correlated, r = .47, p < .001,
as were attributions for personal motives, r =
.48, p < .001. As expected, the extrinsic and
instrumental measures were also positively
correlated (r = .34, p < .05, for motives
attributed to the partner, and r = .30, p <
.05 for personal motives), whereas the intrinsic
and extrinsic scores were not related.
Personal motivations and perceptions of
partner's motivations. It was expected that

108

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND

personal motivations and perceptions of a

partner's motivations would be closely linked,
based on the premise that people need to
assume a shared understanding of common
feeling and commitment. The results offered
very strong support for this prediction. A
belief in a partner's intrinsic motivation was
strongly related to personal feelings of intrinsic
motivation, r = .77, p < .001. Strong correlations between personal motives and attributions about one's partner were also obtained for both the instrumental (r = .53,
p<.001) and extrinsic (r = .63, p<.001)
measures. Thus it is apparent that individuals
tend to project onto their partner motives
very similar to their own.
Love, trust and the attribution of motives.
Love was expected to be strongly related to
the faith component of trust, less so to the
dependability measure and weakly, if at all,
to predictability. To a large extent these predictions were supported. There was a strong
correlation between love and faith, r = .46,
p < .001, a weaker correlation between love
and dependability, r = .25, p < .05, and no
correlation between love and predictability.
It is again perhaps worth noting that there
were some differences between men and
women on the dependability and predictability
measures. The correlations between love and
these two components were not significant
for men but reached significance for women
(r = .29, p < .05, and r = .29, p < .05 for
dependability and predictability, respectively).
Moving next to the estimation of a partner's
motives, it was predicted that love would
relate positively to the perception that a
partner was intrinsically motivated, less
strongly but positively to attributions of instrumental motivation and negatively, if at
all, to perceptions of extrinsic motivation. As
expected, feelings of love were strongly correlated with the intrinsic dimension (r = .49,
p < .001). Contrary to our predictions, however, the correlation of love with perceptions
of instrumental motives was equally substantial (r = .52, p < .001). An examination of
the scores for men and women separately
reveals that this strong correlation of instrumental attributions with love is due largely
to females, r - .62, p < .001, with males exhibiting a noticeably weaker correlation, r =
.37, p < .05. Finally, perceptions of extrinsic

M. ZANNA

motives were not related to love, for either

men or women. Thus, the pattern of results
we had anticipated, materialized for men but,
for women, intrinsic and instrumental perceptions were both strongly tied to feelings
of love.
Looking at measures of personal motives,
the correlations with love followed the expected pattern. A person's feelings of love
correlated highly with self-perceptions of intrinsic motivation, r = .59, p < .001, less so
with self-perceptions of instrumental motives,
r = .42, p < .05, and not at all with extrinsic
motives.
Trust and perceptions of motivation. In
the introduction we suggested that an important basis for feelings of faith was to be found
in the belief that a partner's involvement
in the relationship was intrinsically motivated. Indeed, faith and intrinsic motivation
were strongly correlated (r = .52, p < .001),
whereas faith and instrumental perceptions
were not. This finding serves to further
strengthen the discriminant validity of the
faith construct. The correlations of intrinsic
motivation with dependability was considerably weaker, r = .23, p < .05, and, with predictability, was not significant. From a social
exchange perspective we also expected that
perceiving a partner to be instrumentally
motivated would be associated with feelings
that one's partner was dependable. This result
proved to be only marginal at best (r = .19,
p < .10). Finally, if a partner was perceived
to be extrinsically motivated, the various
components of trust might be expected to
decrease. The correlations with all three measures of trust were indeed in the anticipated
negative direction, but none were statistically
significant.
The relation of self-perceived motives to
trust suggests an interesting pattern of results.
One might speculate that individuals will
exhibit trust to the extent that they see their
own motives as positive and contributing to
the maintenance and enhancement of the
relationship. If they value the relationship
itself (intrinsic) and the qualities of their
partner (instrumental), they are more likely
to have faith that the relationship will endure.
In support of this pattern of reasoning, faith
was strongly correlated with self-perceptions
on both the intrinsic and instrumental di-

TRUST

mensions (r = .41, p < .001, and r - .41,

p< .001, respectively). The latter finding
cannot be explained as a spurious relation
brought about by the strong assumed similarity effect for own and other's motives,
because faith was not related to perceptions
that one's partner was instrumentally motivated. In the same vein the rewarding qualities
provided by one's partner (i.e., personal instrumental perceptions) should, and in fact
do, relate to the dispositional and behavioral
evidence that he or she can be trusted. Both
dependability and predictability correlated
significantly with personal instrumental motives (r = .23, p < .05, and (r = .27, p < .05,
respectively) but not with intrinsic motives.
Finally, a correlation between extrinsic motives and trust materialized for the predictability measure (r = -.24, p < .05). This
suggests that the more an individual perceives
him or herself to be extrinsically motivated,
the more volatile they expect their partner's
behavior to be.
Discussion
Trust
These results show that trust is related in
important ways to the success of a close
relationship. It is equally apparent that trust
is a construct with a number of different
elements and these elements do not all make
equivalent contributions. The most important
aspect of trust in close relationships appears
to be faith: the belief that one's partner will
act in loving and caring ways whatever the
future holds. In terms of both predictive and
discriminant validity, faith had by far the
strongest correlations with measures of love
and happiness and was uniquely tied to perceptions of a partner's intrinsic motivation.
These findings help to articulate our understanding of trust and lend credence to the
commonsense belief that it has a basis in
emotional security over and above the supposedly less ephemeral notions of dependability and predictability. It would be erroneous however, to conclude that these latter
concepts should be ignored. Dependability
was also associated with love and happiness,
though the pattern of correlations was weaker.
Thus, it is still important for an individual

109

in a close relationship to feel their partner is

someone who is dependable and can be relied
on in more immediate, objective ways. The
weaker set of correlations was in fact predicted
from the premise that dependability and predictability would represent less salient and
central concerns for couples compared with
feelings of faith. The couples' more pragmatic
concerns were also echoed in the results for
the predictability component. The revision
of this subscale led us to conclude that this
component needs to be viewed from the
point of view of inconsistency in behavior
rather than consistency. The inconsistency
has psychological meaning because it raises
the spectre of a partner who is volatile and
acts in unexpected, negative ways.
The above result may be helpful in understanding an interesting and unexpected phenomenon. For women there were strong correlations among all three components of trust,
whereas men showed a differentiation of the
three elements. Only faith and dependability
were correlated for men and even this association was comparatively weak. In this regard, Hill, Rubin, and Peplau (1976) have
suggested that women may be more concerned
with the pragmatics of interpersonal behavior
by virtue of what is often a position of greater
dependency in the relationship. This notion
is consistent with our finding that women
appear to have a more integrated view of
trust, which relies not just on feelings (faith),
but also on more particular attributions
drawn about their partners' character (dependability), and concern for consistent behavioral evidence (predictability). Men, however, may have less need for such an integrated
view. Rubin (1973) among others has suggested that they tend to be more romantic
than women, a luxury allowed by their higher
status. Focusing on faith to the relative exclusion of more pragmatic concerns appears to
fit more readily with a romantic orientation
toward relationships. For this reason men
may isolate faith, dependability, and predictability. This, of course, is not inconsistent
with the equally plausible possibility that
women are more sensitive to relationship
issues and maintain the reasonable view that
feelings regarding the future (faith) are most
soundly based on evidence drawn from past
behaviors (dependability and predictability).

110
Motivation

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND

M. ZANNA

categories, with rather different implications.

Thus, the typical intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy used in studies of task motivation does
not entirely reflect the added complexities in
the interpersonal domain.
These results were modified in intriguing
ways when personal motives were reported.
There appears to be less of a distinction
between intrinsic and instrumental motives
when making attributions to the self. Thus,
what might appear to an observer or a partner
as an action motivated by instrumental rewards could very well be perceived by the
actor as an example of intrinsic motivation.
This tendency toward a global intrinsic orientation could, of course, be seen as selfserving. Self-esteem cannot help but be enhanced by the perception that one's actions
come from selfless, altercentric motives. We
are also inclined, however, to view them as
evidence of the availability heuristic (Tversky
& Kahneman, 1973). A person interacting
with a partner he or she loves will often have
accompanying positive feelings that are essentially private, or at least more accessible
to the self than to others. Thus, many actions
which, to an observer, may appear instrumental in nature, may in fact be understood
by the actor in light of these private feelings
and interpreted as intrinsically motivated.
Some mention should be made of the
failure to replicate, in a survey context, the
Seligman et al. (1980) effect of extrinsic
motives on love. First, it is important to
realize that extrinsic motives attributed to
the self were not manipulated in the present
study. The mean of 2.63 for these personal
motives on a 9-point scale suggests they were
not very prominent. It is possible that the
relative dominance of other motives may
overwhelm the impact of an extrinsic orientation, particularly given the presence of more
socially desirable alternative motives. Thus,
it would be fruitful in future investigations
to consider circumstances in naturalistic settings that would make extrinsic motives more
salient.

The results of the item analysis for the

scale measuring the attribution of motives to
one's partner offered clear support for the
existence of a three-component model for
interpersonal perceptions. Only 4 of 24 items
were eliminated, and the three dimensions
could be clearly differentiated by our procedures. As we had expected, a relatively ordered, hierarchical pattern of results emerged
such that intrinsic perceptions were most
strongly linked to feelings of love, followed
by instrumental attributions, with extrinsic
inferences showing no relation whatsoever.
There was one important exception to this
pattern, however: feelings of love for women
were tied as closely to instrumental perceptions as they were to intrinsic ones. Why
might this be the case? In a more complex
form, this finding is reminiscent of the reciprocal attraction principle (Berscheid & Walster, 1977). If an individual perceives that their
partner values them, at least in part, for the
qualities and contributions they provide, we
would venture that such an instrumental
metacognition is self-affirming. It follows then,
that being seen as a valuable person who
brings something uniquely important to the
relationship and feeling loved for what one
has to offer, would encourage good feelings
and bolster self-esteem. This appears to be
the case for women in particular, and may
relate to our earlier conjecture that, for various reasons, women have more rounded,
discerning views on relationships, and therefore would depend less exclusively than men
on the more romantic implications of intrinsic
attributions.
Overall though, the results underline the
potential impact of intrinsic attributions on
feelings of love for both men and women.
This finding is consistent with the view that
the perception of empathic identification and
unselfish concern by one's partner is central
to a meaningful interpersonal relationship
and the growth of love, as Kelley (1979) has
suggested. There was also evidence that intrinsic perceptions were strongly related to Trust and Interpersonal Motives
faith, whereas instrumental attributions were
not. Taken as a whole, the set of results
Finally, it is important to elaborate on the
supports the idea that intrinsic and instru- relation between trust, the attribution of momental motives are psychologically distinct tives to one's partner, and love. The causal

TRUST

pathways relating these variables are of course

impossible to determine in our cross-sectional
design. On theoretical grounds, however, we
would speculate that there is a developmental
order involving an initial stage where concern
with concrete behavior is emphasized. Kelley
(1979) for example has suggested that partners
initially focus on instrumental rewards that
are exchanged as attraction develops. At this
stage trust operates on the most elementary
level of predictability, as both individuals
shield themselves from potential risks. Gradually, however, attention shifts to evidence of
a partner's underlying motives and interpersonal dispositions. As risks are taken and
intimacy increases, partners become increasingly sensitive to the issue of the other's
responsiveness to their needs. Behavior is
coded in terms of messages carried about the
other's willingness to sacrifice self-interest
and show concern for what has now become
an important intimate relationship. According
to Kelley, this process of interpersonal attribution is the basis for judging whether a
partner loves and cares for you.
These concepts were addressed in the present study by introducing a measure of perceived intrinsic motivation. The association
between trust and beliefs about a partner's
motivations is central to the construct validity
of our model of trust. Our model was based
on the notion that the faith component of
trust would depend on the degree to which a
person felt confident in attributing rather
abstract and symbolic interpersonal motives
to the partner. These motives should reflect
an intrinsic orientation that goes beyond the
potentially self-serving tone of instrumental
motives. The results were very consistent
with this perspective. Faith, which reflects an
inherent sense of emotional security, was
strongly correlated with attributions of intrinsic motivation but not at all with perceptions of instrumental goals.
We are inclined to believe that the developmental sequence outlined above is roughly
descriptive of the process that relates these
various feelings. However, we also believe that
each variable facilitates and reinforces growth
(or decline) in the others. Trust, for instance,
permits a sense of security that would help
people cope with the feelings of risk and
personal vulnerability associated with the de-

111

velopment of deeply intimate feelings of love.

Or, in contrast, continuing examples of conflict or inconsiderate behavior on the part of
a partner may lead a person, not only to
doubt the other's motives, but also to experience anxiety around the issue of trust. If
the examples are in fact descriptive and these
feelings tend to develop hand in hand in an
evolving causal loop, investigators may find
it difficult to isolate stages in a sequential
model that capture the process involved in
the growth of intimacy and trust. The implication of the present research is that a closer
examination of these issues is essential.
In the physical sciences many phenomena
are most salient when they are in the process
of change. In the same way, it is when relationships are vulnerable that trust is likely to
be in a process of transition. Therefore, the
most opportune time to examine trust may
occur when stress or conflict has created a
situation where confidence in the other is an
issue. This perspective suggests a research
strategy in which couples experiencing induced or more chronic distress are observed
as they interact in a controlled environment.
Such a procedure allows one to directly observe and measure the interplay between trust
and interpersonal perceptions during a couple's social interaction, rather than having to
rely exclusively on retrospective questionnaires.
Focusing on couples who are dealing with
conflict affords the opportunity to examine
another equally important research concern
the consequences for a relationship when
trust fails. It is a curious paradox that, whereas
trust is slow and difficult to build up, it
appears notoriously easy to break down. Furthermore, it seems that once trust has been
betrayed it is doubly difficult to reestablish.
Subsequent research must address itself to
questions surrounding these issues. For instance, which aspect of trust is most reactive
to life events? The belief that one's partner
is predictable (not volatile) may be the first
to give way when stressed, whereas strong
feelings of faith may help the relationship to
"weather the storm" of conflict. However,
certain critical events, such as unfaithfulness,
may undermine even the buffer zone created
by faith. Under these circumstances the
breakdown of faith may be irreparable, col-

112

J. REMPEL, J. HOLMES, AND M. ZANNA

oring all aspects of trust as well as perceptions

of a partner's motives and subsequent behavior. The empirical results and theoretical
proposals we have presented begin to reveal
the intricate pattern trust weaves in the fabric
of a close relationship. Much research still
remains to be done, but the practical and
theoretical benefits of unravelling this puzzle
promise to be considerable.

References
Altman, I., & Taylor, D. A. (1973). Social penetration:
The development of interpersonal relationships. New
York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Barry, W. A. (1970). Marriage research and conflict: An
integrative review. Psychological Bulletin, 73(\), 4154.
Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1977). Interpersonal attraction, (2nd ed.) Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life.
New York: Wiley.
Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory
construction: A comparison of merits. American Psychologist, 39, 214-227.
Clark, M. S., & Mills, }. (1979). Interpersonal attraction
in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psvchohgy, 37(1), 12-24.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1976). Love, liking and
trust in heterosexual relationships. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 187-190.
Driscoll, R., Davis, K. E., & Lipetz, M. E. (1972).
Parental interference and romantic love: The Romeo
and Juliet effect. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 1-10.
Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive
and destructive processes. New Haven, CN: Yale University Press.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of
the mind. Springfield, III: Thomas.
Guemey, B. G. Jr. (1977). Relationship enhancement
skill training programs for therapy, prevention and
enrichment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Hill, C. T, Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1976). Breakups

before marriage: The end of 103 affairs. Journal of
Social Issues. 32, 147-168.
Hendrick, C., & Hendrick, S. (1983). Liking, loving and
relating. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Holmes, J. G. (1981). The exchange process in close
relationships: Microbehavior and macromotives. In
M. L. Lerner & S. C, Lerner (Eds.), The justice motive
in social behavior (pp. 261-284). New York: Plenum.
Huesmann. L. R., & Levinger, G. (1976). Incremental
exchange theory: A formal model for progression in
dyadic social interaction. In L. Berkowitz & E. Walster
(Eds.), Advances in experimental social psychology
(Vol. 9, pp. 151-193). New York: Academic Press.
Kelley, H. H. (1979). Personal relationships: Their structures and processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic
Trust Scale: Toward understanding interpersonal trust
in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 42. 595-604.
Lerner, M. J. (1977). The justice motive in social behavior
Some hypotheses as to its origins and forms. Journal
of Personality, 45, 1-52.
Reeder, G. D., & Brewer, M. B. (1979). A schematic
model of dispositional attribution in interpersonal
perception. Psychological Review, 56(1), 61-79.
Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness,
and gullibility. American Psychologist, 35, 1-7.
Rubin, Z. (1973). Liking and loving: An imitation to
social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Scanzoni, J. (1979). Social exchange and behavioral
interdependence. In R. L. Burgess & T. L. Huston
(Eds.), Social exchange in developing relationships.
New York: Academic Press.
Seligman, C., Fazio, R. H., & Zanna, M. P. (1980).
Effects of salience of extrinsic rewards on liking and
loving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
38, 453-460.
Strickland, L. H. (1958). Surveillance and trust. Journal
of Personality, 26, 200-215.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A
heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 207-232.

Received August 8, 1983

Revision received August 16, 1984