Interdisciplinaria

ISSN: 0325-8203
[email protected]
Centro Interamericano de Investigaciones
Psicológicas y Ciencias Afines
Argentina

Sacchi, Carla
Interpersonal trust in different ages.
Interdisciplinaria, núm. 99, 2004, pp. 87-107
Centro Interamericano de Investigaciones Psicológicas y Ciencias Afines
Buenos Aires, Argentina

Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=18009907

Cómo citar el artículo

Número completo
Sistema de Información Científica
Más información del artículo Red de Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal
Página de la revista en redalyc.org Proyecto académico sin fines de lucro, desarrollado bajo la iniciativa de acceso abierto
 INTERPERSONAL TRUST IN DIFFERENT AGES
Carla Sacchi *

Resumen

El objetivo de este trabajo es presentar diferentes escalas

en español para la evaluación de la confianza interpersonal. La
calidad de las relaciones establecidas entre los miembros de un
grupo social permite el crecimiento de cada integrante y del
grupo como conjunto. En la mayoría de los casos, y particular-
mente en la infancia, las necesidades solamente pueden ser
satisfechas a través de la interacción con los demás; esto impli-
ca interdependencia y requiere reciprocidad. Por lo tanto es
importante prever cómo actuará la otra persona, para anticipar
nuestro comportamiento hacia ella. Las expectativas producen
cambios en la atribución, según sea interpretada la actitud del
otro como beligerante o cooperativa, y a la vez modifican el
comportamiento hacia los demás.

Palabras clave: Confianza interpersonal - interdependencia -

reciprocidad - cambios en la atribución.

.Abstract

This presentation aims to review the instruments created

for the evaluation of interpersonal trust among various age
groups within a Spanish speaking community.
The quality of the relationships established between
members of any given social group, permits the growth of each
person in particular as well as that of the group as a whole. In
most cases, and particularly so during infancy, our needs can

* Psychological Doctor. Independent Researcher of Consejo Nacional de Investigacio-

nes Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET). E-Mail: [email protected]

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 87

 Sacchi

only be satisfied through interaction with others. This fact nec-

essarily entails interdependence, and requires reciprocity. It is
therefore important to be able to predict how the other person
will be have in order to anticipate our own behaviour, in order
to obtain some advantage or avoid frustration. Expectations
cause attributive changes depending on whether the other per-
son’s attitude is interpreted as belligerent or co-operative. It
also modifies behaviour towards others.

Key words: Interpersonal trust - interdependence - reciprocity -

attributive changes.

This paper intends to go into the evolution of that feeling of trust and
assess whether it is a structural trait of personality, or if the peculiar char-
acteristics of each situation bring about a behaviour of trust or mistrust. If
we view situations as a set of social factors interacting with personal expe-
rience at a given moment, it is unthinkable to trust others at large without
attributing a specific meaning that will explain and interpret facts within a
given context. We organize our knowledge of the world and react according
to personality, language and culture; the situational context taints our inter-
pretation, and, conversely, the way we define or interpret the situation, will
influence our behaviour. The interpersonal trust construct would be an
important indicator of disposition when re-signifying external data which
disrupt internal balance.
On the other hand, trust would underpin predictability; namely, the
capacity to foresee the behaviour of others. Previous research on trust has
advanced two divergent conceptualizations of the construct: expectations
toward people in general and relationships with specific partners. Trust ori-
entations toward people in general is considered by Rotter (1967, 1971,
1980) to be an expectancy deriving from past experience that an individual
can relied on. In this regard, generalized trust may be regarded as something
akin to personality trait (Couch, 1994; Couch et al., 1996). Conversely, rela-
tional trust refers to the faith that people have that the partner will respond
to them with positive feelings. It is also important to differentiate within
trust according to the depth or intimacy of the interpersonal relationship
(Rempel, Holmes, & Zanna, 1985).

88 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Trust in may be seen as part of the supporting network of any person;

it will resemble attachment in closer relationships (parents, couples).
Based on these theoretical tenets, we drew up the following scales for
children, adolescents, and adults.

Scale of Interpersonal Trust for Children

Interpersonal trust in infancy originates in attachment: a system based

on love, whose aim is to provide for the immature members of the species
(Ainsworth, Salter, & Bowlby, 1991).
Social expectations and skills are developed within the scope of the
mother and the nuclear family. Later on, they are extended to the wider
social group: neighbourhood, school, and society at large.
On the other hand, Mitchell (1990) has found that the children whose
parents fulfilled their promises in the past, generally trust other authority
figures. This shift entails better interpersonal relationships, since trusting
children are more optimistic and lively. They are also less prone to cheating
in situations that are controlled without their knowledge. From trusting,
they become trustworthy. Social sanction modifies expectations and adapts
them to the social context.
We drew up a list of situations implying trust, both positive and nega-
tive, towards the people concerned. These persons were parents, friends,
teachers, work or studies colleagues, the media and people at large. The sit-
uations were those normally encountered by each age group. A jury of three
psychologists chose the most adequate questions in the list. Items were
evaluated on a YES/NO basis. Half the items were negative statements, so
values were inverted in the analysis. Eight items of social desirability were
added: they were taken from Marlowe Crowne’s Social Desirability Scale.
Pilot studies were carried out in all scales, to check that the items were
properly worded and relevant.
The final scale is made up of 24 items administered to a group of third
grade children (9-10 years old) and to a group of seventh grade children
(11-12 years of age). The lists were given out to the whole group, they were
self-administered and written. All the tests were given out in the classroom,
in municipality-run, full day schools attended by the children.
The final sample was formed by 626 children (348 boys, and 278 girls),
between 9, and 13 years of age: 9 years old (n =184), 10 years old (n = 140),
11 years old (n = 10), 12 years old (n =142), and 13 years old (n =160).

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 89

 Sacchi

Because the age distribution, we presumed that younger children

would show greater dependence (trust, in this case) on parents and
authority figures. But older children, according to the same hypothesis,
would depend more on their freinds, and would be more critical of
authority figures.
This led us to analyze each age sub-sample independently. Items were
assessed for their discrimination power: those that were answered in the
same way by 75% or more respondents were deemed non-discriminative.
The sub-sample of older children was finally composed of 299
children (167 boys, and 132 girls), between 11, and 13 years of age,
distributed as follows: 11 years old (n = 9), 10 years (n = 140), 12 years
(n =142), 13 years (n =150).
Items 2, 4, 6, 8, 15, and 31 proved non-discriminative. Items 5, and 28
show a high percentage of missing.
In order to study the reliability of the scale, we calculated Cronbach’s
alpha index, which reached a .70 value.
Factorial validity was studied with the principal axes method, Promax
rotation. The data matrix proved liable to factorization since KMO index
attained a .70 value, and Bartlett’s Sphere Test was p = .00. Anti-image cor-
relation values fluctuated between 630, and 773.
Three factors liable of interpretation were found. This accounts for the
18% variance. Factor 1 accounts for 11.57% variance; Factor 2, 4.16%, and
Factor 3, 2.63%.
Factor 1 inverted includes items 6; 11 ;13; 20; inverted 26; inverted
27; inverted 31. Factor 2 includes items 8; inverted 11; 13; 18; 21; 24;
inverted 26; inverted 27; 13; 21; inverted 29; inverted 30; and Factor 3
includes inverted 2; 8; 9; 13; 20; inverted 27 (see Table 1).
The sub-sample of younger children was finally formed by 327
children (146 boys, and 132 girls), between 9, and 10 years of age,
distributed as follows: 9 years, n =184; 10 years, n = 142. Items 15, and
20 proved non-discriminative.
Reliability was tested through Cronbach’s alpha index, which reached
a .61 value; with item 8 being the most unstable.
Factorial validity was studied with the principal axes method, Promax
rotation. The data matrix proved liable to factorisation since the KMO
index attained a .70 value, and Bartlett’s Sphere Test was p = .00. Anti-
image values ranged between 595, and 740.
Three factors liable of interpretation were found. This accounts for the
20.84% total variance. Factor 1 accounts for 11.05% variance; Factor 2,
6.30%, and Factor 3, 3.48%.

90 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Factor 1 includes items 3; 6; 8 (negative); 13; 15; 20; 21. Factor 2

includes inverted 11; inverted 16; inverted 26; inverted 27; inverted 29.
Factor 3 includes items 3 (negative); 8; 4; 15 (negative); 31 (negative).

When comparing Factorial Analyses of both sub-samples, we notice

that in Factor 1, both groups show common values for items 6, 13, and
20. In younger groups, items 3, 8 (negative); 15, 21, and 28 are added;
and in the older group, items inverted 11; inverted 26, and inverted 27.

In Factor 2, both groups show common values for items inverted 11,
inverted 26, inverted 27, inverted 29. In younger group, item inverted 16
is added, and in the older group, 13, 20, 21, 24, inverted 29, inverted 30.

In Factor 3, both groups show common values 4, and 8. The younger

add 3 (negative),15 (negative), and inverted 3, and the older, items
inverted 2, 13, 20, 21, inverted 27 (see Table 2).

Because the little interpretability of factor, it was decided to merge both

samples in one formed by 626 children, 348 boys, and 278 girls. In order to
study the reliability of the scale, we calculated Cronbach’s alpha index,
which reached a .61 value. The most unstable items were 21, 23, 28 and 32.
Items 15, 23, 27, and 31 proved non-discriminative. Items 5, and 28
had a high percentage of missing.
Factorial validity was studied with the principal axes method, Promax
rotation. The data matrix proved liable to factorization since KMO index
attained an adequate level (.72), and Bartlett's Sphere Test was p = .00.
Three factors liable of interpretation were found. This accounts for the 20%
variance, as seen in the table. Factor 1 accounts for 12.19% variance;
Factor 2 , 9.2%, and Factor 3, 6.1%.
Factor 1 includes items 6, 9, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, inverted 26, inverted
27, and 28. Factor 2 include items 3 (negative), 4, 6 (negative), 8, 15 (neg-
ative), and 31 (negative). Factor 3 includes all inverted items: 11, 14, 16,
26, 27, and 30 (see Table 3).

Analysis of results and conclusions on the scale for children

The first two factors, which we termed trust factors, include items
implying trust as well as mistrust. Factor 3, on the other hand, is the
clearest as regards its components since it only includes mistrust items.

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 91

 Sacchi

Factor 1 includes items 6, 9, 13, 15, 20, 53 which imply trust in

parents, teachers and people at large. This factor also includes items of
mistrust towards parents, teachers and other children.

Factor 2 includes items 3 (negative), 4, 6 (negative), 8, 15 (negative),

and 31 (negative) that express trust in politicians, companions, and
parents, and lack of trust in parents and other children.

Factor 3 includes items 11, 14, 16, 26, 27, 29, and 30: lack of trust in
teachers, people at large, parents and other children. Is a clear factor of
mistrust, there are only mistrust items.

The scale shows an acceptable level of reliability. Nevertheless, the

study of factorial validity does not provide clear results due to the introduc-
tion of items of mistrust in trust factors. The mistrust factor, on the other
hand, is usually clear.
Secondly, we found significant differences when the group was
divided by age. This leads us to presume there are different ways of coping
with the evaluation of trust on others.
When studying non-discriminative items (15, 23, 27, and 31) as well
as those with a high level of missing (5.28) or unstable in Cronbach’s alpha
study (21, 23, 28, 32) we may come to the conclusion that parent -and
teacher- figures are hardly ever criticized; while nobody wants to pass
judgement on his/her companions’ behaviour.
The fact that the study of factorial validity was not adequate, since the
factors obtained do not coincide with the tenets underpinning the choice of
items, calls for further studies of the test, with a substitution of the items
called into question.

Scale of Interpersonal Trust for Adolescents

The scale for adolescents was made up of 32 items. The sample studied
included 671 secondary school students (273 boys, and 398 girls) aged 13-
16. The scale was administered to different groups, at the youngsters’
school. Anonymity, and secrecy were strictly kept.
Analysis of reliability showed a .62 Cronbach’s alpha index. The most
unstable item was 31. Though none of the items proved non-discriminative,
addition of values 1, and 2 surpassed 75% in items 10, 15, 22, 23, and 28.
On the other hand, value 3 (neuter) attained or surpassed 30% in items 1, 4,

92 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

6, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, and 27. Lastly, items 10, 12, 23, and 1
show a high missing percentage.
Data matrix was deemed liable of factorization since the KMO index
reached a .75 value and Bartlett’s Sphere Test, p = .00. Anti-image values
range from a minimum .548 to a maximum .843. Three factors proved open
to interpretation, which accounts for the 22% total variance, as can be seen
in the Table 4. Factor 1 accounts for an 11.23% variance; Factor 2, 6.34%,
and Factor 3, 4.86%.

Factor 1 is defined by variables 10, 15, 16 negative, 22, 23 negative,

24, 25 negative, 27 negative, 28, 32.
Factor 2 is formed by items 3, 9, 16 negative, 17, 18, 19, 23 negative,
30, 31.
Factor 3 is formed by items 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 16 negative, 21, 23 negative,
24, 25, 26, 27 negative, 29 (see Table 4).

Items 2, 4, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 20 have no weight in any factor. Factor
1 is defined by items of trust in parents, friends and partner. There are items
of mistrust too, in parents, partner and friends.
All items in Factor 2 are of mistrust: in people at large, politicians,
unknown persons. Items 16, and 23 are of trust as regards parents. Item 23
proved non-discriminative.
Factor 3 includes trust in people, in justice and mistrust of friends,
parents, and partner. Mistrust items are included in the non-discriminative
group.
It is worth noting that the questions with the highest rate of missing
values were those related to partners. We believe that at this age, youngsters
do not usually think in terms of intimacy with a sexual partner. Their sexual
relationships are normally connected to defiance in boys, and romance in
girls. One of the trust factors includes people who are close to them, and the
other one is formed by people at large, politicians, etc. Unlike the other two
groups studied (children and adults), trust factors in adolescents include
mistrust items, while the mistrust factor is clearly cut.

Scale of Interpersonal Trust for Adults

This is a modified version of the first scale, which was drawn up to

study moderating variables in stress (Sacchi, 1995). Deficiencies perceived
in that first version were connected to the fact that the questions did not

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 93

 Sacchi

contemplate specific situations concerned with more emotional contents

(attachment) in close relationships. These were modified in the current
version.
The scale was administered to 134 adults: 59 men and 74 women, aged
between 25, and 55. It was individual and voluntary. Most scales were
administered within the context of work evaluation.
Analysis of reliability showed a .61 Cronbach’s alpha index. Item 7
proved non-discriminative. In items 4, 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18 the addition
of values 1 and 2 surpassed 75%. On the other hand, value 3 (neuter) attained
or surpassed 30% in items 13 and 22. Missing percentage is very low.
Data matrix was deemed liable of factorisation since the KMO index
reached a .60 value, and Bartlett’s Sphere Test, p = .00. Anti-image values
range from a minimum .461 to a maximum .720.
Three factors proved open to interpretation, which accounts for the
22% total variance, as can be seen in the Table 5. Factor 1 accounts for
10.10% variance; Factor 2, 7.47%, and Factor 3, 4.66%.

Factor 1 is defined by variables 2 negative, 4, 7 negative, 14, 15 neg-

ative, 16, 18, 20 negative, 21 negative, 24 negative, 25, 27 negative.
Factor 2 is defined by variables 1, 2, 5, 9, 19, 25, 26 negative, and 28.
Factor 3 is composed of items 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 22 (see Table 5).

Factor 1 includes items 4, 14, 16, and 18, which may be assessed as
scarcely discriminative since over 75% of subjects expressed agreement.
Item 7 proved non discriminative: 75% of respondents disagreed. When the
items where done in general terms, that is trust would not be attributed to
any subjects, there are high level of missing.
Factor 2 items expressed trust in people in general.
In Factor 3, items 13, and 22, connected to false accusations of
politicians and scarce reliability of sports competitions, obtained very high
levels of neuter answers (neither agreement nor disagreement), which we
can classify, up to a certain point, as missing values.
The wording of items 3, 6, 8, 12, and 17 is done in general terms; con-
sequently, trust would not be attributed to any subject (actor). Respondents
would therefore not have been able to make up their minds, since they may
not have known how to apply the contents of the item to their own experi-
ence.
As shown in the table, Factor 1 is connected to trust in the partner,
offspring, companions, people in general. Factor 2 is related to people at
large, teachers, etc., and Factor 3 is connected to mistrust in people in

94 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

general, politicians, and it includes item 10, trust in one’s partner. These
items deal with friends’ opinion, partner’s trustworthiness, help received by
parents from their own children and co-operation among colleagues at work.

Conclusion

The aim of this research was to explore the differential experience of

trust in a broader range of interpersonal relationships. As proposed by
Rotter (1971), we chose items based in trust, or mistrust, generated by par-
ents, friends, partner, teachers, colleagues, and people in general.
The results show that this difference had not appeared, but we can bet-
ter interprete the Factorial Analysis results differentiating Relational Trust
and General Trust (Couch et al., 1996). In Relational Trust we find feelings
of confidence in close relationship, based on emotion-laden interactions,
and in general or global trust, that assesses trust in novel situation, and in
the belief that the others are honest.
In children sample we find:
- Factor 1: Relational trust and mistrust (parents and teachers).
- Factor 2: General trust, that includes companions and impersonal
expressions.
- Factor 3: Mistrust, general and relational.
In adolescent sample we find:
- Factor 1: Relational trust and mistrust.
- Factor 2: General mistrust and Relational trust parents (only one
item).
- Factor 3: General trust.
In adults sample we find:
- Factor 1: Relational trust, partner, friends.
- Factor 2: General trust.
- Factor 3: Mistrust, general and relational.
In all the samples the Mistrust factor was more clear than the Trust
Factor.
The purpose of this work was to develop a comprehensive, reliable and
valid measure of trust as it is experience in differing types and levels of
relationships.
This difference on General and Relational is clearly seen in adults,
however in children and adolescents Relational Trust and Mistrust are inter-
woven. In early adolescence, the bond with the parental figure is as intense
and ambivalent as in childhood.

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 95

 Sacchi

Table 1
Factorial Analysis Children Trust Scale 12 years old

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

6 We can almost always trust that parents will keep

their promises. .58 .27 .30
26(-) Most parents say one thing and do another. .46 .34 .29
27(-) I believe my teachers tell lies. .46 .36 .34
31(-) My parents do not always tell me the truth when we
touch certain subjects. .46 0 0
11(-) Most teachers say one thing and do another. .39 .49 .20
20 Most of my teachers admit their mistakes. .34 .32 .59
13 Teachers treat all children equally. .32 .53 .45
21 Most of the people I know keep there promises they
make to me. .17 .44 .30
29(-) Most of the people who come to fix things at home
charge more than they should. .24 .41 .22
30(-) Very often children blame one of their companions
falsely. .13 .41 .14
24 I believe that in most games where I played there
were no tricks. .21 .34 .22
8 When the teacher is not around, my companions
behave properly. 0 .30 .38
18 Most children keep their promises. 0 .30 .21
9 Some day the police will put an end to thieves. .18 .18 .43
2(-) People are more and more untruthful. .13 .22 .31
28 Children usually study for their exams. .21 .19 .26
16(-) Most of the time you cannot expect any help from
your neighbours. 0 .21 .20
15 I believe my parents always see to my own well-
being. .29 .11 .20

this table continues

96 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Table 1 (Continuation)
Factorial Analysis Children Trust Scale 12 years old

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

32 I cannot even imagine the nasty things that happen

outside my home. 0 .28 .13
14(-) Some children say they are my best friends, but
they sometimes stand me up. 0 .27 0
5 Children behave properly because they fear
punishment. .18 .13 0
3 Whenever a new child comes to school, I
immediately make friends with him and I do not
mistrust him. .27 0 0
4 Politicians speak the truth most of the time. -.11 0 0
23 I have to be careful to see that other children will
not take advantage of me. .12 .16 .26

Percentage of variance 11.6 4.2 2.6

Note:
n = 299
values < .30
(-): inverted items

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 97

 Sacchi

Table 2
Factorial Analysis Children Trust Scale 9 years old

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

15 I believe my parents always see to my own well-

being. .75 0 -.58
6 We can almost always trust that parents will keep
their promises. .63 .15 -.25
20 Most of my teachers admit their mistakes. .60 0 -.26
21 Most of the people I know keep there promises
they make to me. .51 .22 0
3 Whenever a new child comes to school, I
immediately make friends with him and I do not
mistrust him. .36 0 -.31
8 When the teacher is not around, my companions
behave properly. -.31 0 .50
13 Teachers treat all children equally. .31 .23 0
26(-) Most parents say one thing and do another. .13 .55 0
11(-) Most teachers say one thing and do another. .11 .45 0
16(-) Most of the time you cannot expect any help from
your neighbours. 0 .41 .16
27(-) I believe my teachers tell lies. .25 .34 -.23
29(-) Most of the people who come to fix things at home
charge more than they should. 0 .33 0
4 Politicians speak the truth most of the time. 0 .11 .46
31(-) My parents do not always tell me the truth when
we touch certain subjects. .15 .22 -.33
18 Most children keep their promises. 0 .29 .29
30(-) Very often children blame one of their companions
falsely. 0 .17 .23
9 Some day the police will put an end to thieves. .29 0 .22

this table continues

98 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Table 2 (Continuation)
Factorial Analysis Children Trust Scale 9 years old

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

32 I cannot even imagine the nasty things that happen

outside my home. 0 .28 .13
14(-) Some children say they are my best friends, but
they sometimes stand me up. 0 .26 0
28 Children usually study for their exams. .21 .24 0
5(-) Children behave properly because they fear
punishment. 0 .11 0
24 I believe that in most games where I played there
were no tricks. .16 0 0
2(-) People are more and more untruthful. 0 .21 0
23 I have to be careful to see that other children will
not take advantage of me. .12 .16 .26

Percentage of variance 11.6 4.2 2.6

Note:
n = 327
values < .30
(-): inverted items

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 99

 Sacchi

Table 3
Factorial Analysis Children Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

20 Most of my teachers admit their mistakes. .68 -.16 .10

6 We can almost always trust that parents will keep
their promises. .53 -.51 .21
13 Teachers treat all children equally. .53 0 .29
21 Most of the people I know keep their promises they
make to me. .53 0 .25
9 Some day the police will put an end to thieves. .50 .17 0
15 I believe my parents always see to my own well-being .42 -.66 0
27(-) I believe my teachers tell lies. .42 -.20 .39
28 Children usually study for their exams. .36 0 0
24 I believe that in most games where I played there
were no tricks. .30 0 .15
26(-) Most parents say one thing and do another. 30 -.11 .53
8 When the teacher is not around, my companions
behave properly. 0 .58 0
4 Politicians speak the truth most of the time. .20 .57 0
3 Whenever a new child comes to school, I immediately
make friends with him and I do not mistrust him. .23 -.49 0
31(-) My parents do not always tell me the truth when we
touch certain subjects. .10 -.42 .27
11(-) Most teachers say one thing and do another. .22 0 .62
29(-) Most of the people who come to fix things at home
charge more than they should. .19 0 .46
14(-) Some children say they are my best friends, but they
sometimes stand me up. 0 0 .45
30(-) Very often children blame one of their companions
falsely. 0 .14 .42

this table continues

100 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Table 3 (Continuation)
Factorial Analysis Children Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

16(-) Most of the time you cannot expect any help from
your neighbours. .16 .25 .39
5 Children behave properly because they fear
punishment. 0 -.19 .29
23 I have to be careful to see that other children will not
take advantage of me. .13 .17 .27
2(-) People are more and more untruthful. .23 .14 .27
18 Most children keep their promises. .26 .29 .26
32 I cannot even imagine the nasty things that happen
outside my home. 0 .28 .13

Percentage of variance 12.2 9.2 6.1

Note:
n = 626
values < .30
(-): inverted items

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 101

 Sacchi

Table 4
Factorial Analysis of Adolescent Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

23(-) Parents are concerned only with their own well-being. .59 -.57 -.33
16(-) My parents do not answer my questions honestly. .55 -.38 -.30
22 Whenever I have an important problem, I can
depend on my friend's help. .52 -.15 0
32(-) Friends are often insincere. .50 -.11 -.27
25(-) I never know what my friends are scheming behind
my back. .49 -.22 -.33
28 I can trust my friends to keep a secret. .48 -.14 0
15 I can trust my companions will help me whenever I
am in trouble. .44 0 0
10 I can generally trust that my parents will keep their
promises. .38 -.21 0
24 I only trust my partner when I must discuss any
problem. -.33 0 .35
27(-) I am afraid my partner may do something that may
hurt me. .33 -.13 -.30
31(-) When dealing with strangers, I am careful until they
have shown that I may trust them. -.30 .65 0
3(-) Hypocrisy is growing in our society. -.25 .62 .22
18(-) Most of the accusations made by politicians are false. -.12 .57 .11
30(-) The future of our country will be uncertain unless we
can get better people into politics. -.19 .51 0
19(-) The media respond to powerful forces which distort
the truth. 0 .48 0
9(-) People try to make sure they obey the law through
fear of punishment and social rejection rather than
based on their conscience. -.14 .41 0

this table continues

102 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Table 4 (Continuation)
Factorial Analysis of Adolescent Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

17(-) One cannot expect most of one's companions all

what they say they will do. 0 .33 0
21 Most politicians are sincerely truthful in their pre-
elections promises. -.26 .19 .50
29 Most students are more concerned about learning
that getting good grades. 0 .13 .50
26 Most students are not dishonest even when they
would benefit from higher marks. -.20 .13 .47
6 Our society guarantees that courts of justice will
grant me the same treatment as to other citizens. -.10 .11 .46
5 Most teachers admit to ignoring some point. 0 .11 .43
7 I find some politicians sound convincing and
trustworthy when they expound their projects. -.14 0 .43
1 People usually keep their promises. 0 0 .39
8 I believe that, generally speaking, teachers are able
to answer their student's questions. .21 0 .31
14(-) I am afraid my partner may deceive me. .25 0 -.23
12 Whenever I must come to a decision, I trust my
partner's opinion. 0 0 .22
4 I appreciate several journalists because they try to
stick to the truth regardless of alien interests. 0 -.11 .16
2 Nowadays, children can expect their parents to help
them when they are in trouble. .24 0 .15
13(-) In many sports competitions, results are agreed
upon in advance. .10 .20 0

this table continues

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 103

 Sacchi

Table 4 (Continuation)
Factorial Analysis of Adolescent Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

11(-) My teacher often disappoint me because they are

biased. .27 .11 0
20(-) Most teachers do not worry about their student's
learning process. -.26 0 0

Percentage of variance 11.23 6.34 4.86

Note:
n = 671
values < .30
(-): inverted items

104 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

Table 5
Factorial Analysis of Adult Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

20(-) Friends are often insincere. -.61 -.12 .31

4 I trust the unbiased opinion of my friends. .58 .12 -.17
16 Parents can expect their children to help them when
they are in need. .51 .14 .21
21(-) I fear my partner may do something that will hurt me. -.50 .16 0
7(-) Children do not offer any help when their parents
need it. .49 0 .15
14 I trust my partner will keep a secret. .46 0 .12
18 When someone starts on a new job, he can depend
of the help of his colleagues. .43 .19 0
15(-) I never know what my colleagues at work are
scheming behind my back. -.40 0 .43
2 I feel I can trust some politicians when they expound
their projects. -.37 .31 -.24
24(-) Most people are only interested in their own welfare. -.34 -.29 0
25 Most people keep their word. .31 .63 .28
19 Teachers usually worry about arousing their
student's interest in their studies. 0 .52 -.22
1 I believe people generally show solidarity. 0 .44 -13
26(-) I mistrust and disbelieve other people's intentions. 0 - .43 .25
9 Many journalists stick to the truth regardless of alien
interest. 0 .40 0
28 Doctors are sincerely concerned about their atients. .16 .38 -.14
22(-) In several sports competitions, results are agree
upon in advance. -.10 0 .46
10 When I must come to a decision, I trust my partner's
opinion. .29 -.17 .40

this table continues

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 105

 Sacchi

Table 5 (Continuation)
Factorial Analysis Adult Trust Scale

Nº Items Factor Factor Factor

1 2 3

11(-) The media respond to powerful forces which distort the

truth. 0 -.25 .36
13(-) A good number of the accusations made by politicians
are false. 0 -.15 .32
23 I only trust my family when it comes to discussing my
problems. 0 0 .24
6 People abide by the law because they punishment,
rather than based on their conscience. 0 0 .22
17(-) When dealing with strangers, I am careful until they
have shown that I may trust them. .12 -.27 -.20
8(-) The future of our country will be uncertain unless we
can get better people on the politics. .19 0 .16
3(-) Hypocrisy is growing in our society. 0 -.19 .15
5 Our society guarantees that courts of justice will grant
equal treatment to all citizens. -.20 .29 0
27(-) I am afraid my partner may leave me. -.31 .12 0
12 Whenever I must solve a problem, I can count on my
friend's help. .28 0 0

Percentage of variance 10.10 7.47 4.66

Note:
N = 134
values < .30
(-): inverted items

106 INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107

Interpersonal trust

References

Ainsworth, M., Salter, D., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to

personality development. American Psychologist, April, 333-341.
Couch, L.L. (1994). The development of the Trust Inventory. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis. University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
Couch, L.L., Jeffrey, A.M., & Jones, W.H. (1996). Measuring level of trust.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(2), 305-323.
Mitchell, C. (1990). Development of restoration of trust in interpersonal
relationship during adolescence and beyond. Adolescence, 25, 847-
854.
Rempel, J.K., Holmes, J.G., & Zamma, M.P. (1985). Trust inclose relation-
ships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 95-112.
Rotter, J. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust.
Journal of Personality, 35, 651-665.
Rotter, J. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 26(5), 443-451.
Rotter, J. (1980). Interpersonal trust, truthworthiness and gullibility. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 35(1), 1-7.
Sacchi, C. (1995). Evaluación de la confianza interpersonal [Interpersonal
trust evaluation]. Interdisciplinaria, 12(2), 65-72.

Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigaciones

en Psicología Matemática y Experimental (CIIPME)
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones
Científicas y Técnicas (CONICET)
Tte. Gral. Perón 2158
(C1040AAH) Buenos Aires – Argentina

Received: March 7, 2001

Accepted: November 9, 2001

INTERDISCIPLINARIA, 2004, NUMERO ESPECIAL, 87-107 107