Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM)

1. Abstract

The Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) scale, developed by Rebecca B. Rubin, Elizabeth M. Perse, and Carole A. Barbato in 1988, is an established psychometric assessment designed to assess the functional and psychological reasons why individuals engage in interpersonal interactions. Rooted within the uses and gratifications paradigm and Schutz’s fundamental interpersonal relations orientation theory, the scale operationalizes interpersonal communication as goal-directed, purposive human behavior. The standard instrument consists of 28 items organized across six distinct subscales: Pleasure (8 items), Affection (5 items), Inclusion (4 items), Escape (4 items), Relaxation (4 items), and Control (3 items). Participants rate each statement on a 5-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (“Not at all”) to 5 (“Exactly”), indicating the degree to which each motive reflects their general or target-specific reasons for talking with others.

Extensive psychometric investigations consistently demonstrate that the ICM scale possesses robust psychometric properties across diverse relational, developmental, and cultural contexts. Internal consistency estimates across literature remain high to exceptional: Pleasure (α = .88–.97), Affection (α = .84–.91), Inclusion (α = .78–.91), Escape (α = .77–.85), Relaxation (α = .82–.96), and Control (α = .72–.81). Confirmatory factor analytic investigations validate the multidimensional six-factor structure against alternative unidimensional and hierarchical models. Construct validity is supported by theoretical associations with communication apprehension, self-disclosure, loneliness, interaction involvement, personality traits (such as extraversion, neuroticism, and agreeableness), and relational satisfaction across dyadic configurations including family, friendships, romantic partnerships, and mediated interactions. The ICM scale remains an indispensable diagnostic and empirical tool in communication studies, relational psychology, and social interaction research.

2. Keywords

Interpersonal Communication Motives, ICM, Rebecca B. Rubin, uses and gratifications theory, interpersonal motives, communication competence, social interaction, pleasure, affection, inclusion

3. Authors

The Interpersonal Communication Motives scale was conceived and empirically validated by communication scholars at Kent State University:

• Rebecca B. Rubin, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Communication Studies, School of Communication Studies, Kent State University, Kent, Ohio, United States. Dr. Rubin is an authority on communication competence, interpersonal communication, and measurement methodology in human communication research.
• Elizabeth M. Perse, Ph.D. — Professor Emerita of Communication, Department of Communication, University of Delaware, Newark, Delaware, United States. Her research focuses on media effects, cognitive and emotional uses of mass media, and the intersection of mass and interpersonal communication.
• Carole A. Barbato, Ph.D. (1947–2014) — Former Professor of Communication Studies, Kent State University, East Liverpool Campus, East Liverpool, Ohio, United States. Dr. Barbato investigated lifespan communication, intergenerational interaction, and interpersonal communication dynamics.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) scale is to identify, classify, and quantify the underlying psychological and functional drivers that stimulate human interpersonal dialogue. Historically, research on communication motivation was segregated into mass communication research—dominated by the uses and gratifications perspective—and interpersonal communication research, which frequently examined behavioral outcomes without assessing the cognitive motivators prompting the interaction. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) addressed this theoretical bifurcation by constructing a psychometrically sound, self-report instrument capable of mapping the purposive nature of face-to-face and mediated human communication.

In empirical research, the ICM scale allows scholars to systematically investigate how individual difference variables—such as psychological well-being, loneliness, biological sex, age, attachment style, and cognitive flexibility—influence why individuals seek out social encounters. The scale can be administered in two distinct assessment modes: general/trait-level motivation (assessing an individual’s chronic, dispositional motives for communicating with people in general) or target-specific/relational motivation (evaluating motives directed toward a specific communication partner, such as a father, romantic partner, peer, or co-worker). This dual-applicability has facilitated research across family systems, educational environments, organizational hierarchies, and computer-mediated social networks.

In applied and clinical settings, the ICM scale serves as a diagnostic assessment tool for relational therapists, counselors, and communication coaches. Dysfunctional interpersonal patterns frequently stem from unaligned or covert communication motives. For instance, a relationship characterized by one partner communicating exclusively for “Control” (instrumental demands and dominance) while the other seeks “Affection” or “Inclusion” often suffers chronic dissatisfaction, misattribution, and conflict. Counselors utilize ICM profiles to assist clients in identifying communicative blind spots, developing communicative competence, mitigating social avoidance, and fostering prosocial motives that enhance relational intimacy and reduce relational distress.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct of interpersonal communication motivation conceptualizes interpersonal interaction as an intentional, goal-oriented psychological behavior. Rather than viewing communication as an involuntary or mechanical reaction to external stimuli, the ICM framework posits that individuals select communication channels, topics, and relational targets to satisfy distinct psychological needs. The construct is operationalized through six orthogonal dimensions:

Pleasure

The Pleasure motive reflects the hedonic, fun, exciting, and entertaining dimension of human interaction. Grounded in intrinsic motivation, individuals driven by pleasure communicate because they find the process of socializing stimulating, joyful, and inherently rewarding. It represents communicative playfulness and positive affectivity. For example, engaging in lively banter, sharing humor, or conversing with friends at social gatherings are classic manifestations of the pleasure motive.

Affection

The Affection motive captures the expressive, prosocial, and relational nurturing dimensions of communication. It embodies behaviors aimed at expressing gratitude, offering emotional care, communicating concern, and showing verbal support to others. Grounded in altruism and attachment security, high scores on this dimension signify a desire to validate the other person’s worth and cultivate emotional warmth. Example behaviors include thanking someone for their support, reassuring an anxious friend, or expressing love and care to a family member.

Inclusion

The Inclusion motive addresses the fundamental human need for belongingness, social connection, and the alleviation of loneliness. Communicating for inclusion is prompted by a desire to overcome psychological isolation, establish companionship, and secure reassurance that one is valued and not alone. Individuals high in inclusion motives initiate conversations to share their personal struggles and ensure relational presence, such as reaching out to a confidant when feeling isolated or seeking a listening ear during distressing moments.

Escape

The Escape motive is an avoidant, diversionary communicative mechanism. Individuals motivated by escape engage in conversations to procrastinate, deflect attention from pressing obligations, avoid unpleasant chores, or kill time when experiencing boredom. Rather than pursuing the conversation for its relational value, the dialogue functions as an instrument of psychological diversion. Typical examples include lingering in extended conversations to postpone completing a demanding task or chatting casually simply because one has nothing better to do.

Relaxation

The Relaxation motive represents communication as a restorative, stress-reducing, and calming activity. It involves utilizing interpersonal dialogue to unwind, alleviate bodily or mental tension, and achieve cognitive decompression after encountering environmental or occupational stressors. Unlike pleasure, which is high-arousal and excitement-oriented, relaxation represents a low-arousal, tranquilizing communicative drive, such as discussing one’s evening quietly with a partner to decompress after an exhausting workday.

Control

The Control motive reflects the instrumental, persuasive, and compliance-gaining dimension of human interaction. Driven by personal utility and agency, individuals motivated by control enter communication episodes to direct others’ behaviors, extract resources, persuade listeners, or exercise interpersonal influence. While sometimes viewed pejoratively, control is an essential functional motive necessary for task coordination, leadership, boundary-setting, and obtaining assistance, such as telling a subordinate what to prioritize or asking a peer for tangible aid.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the Interpersonal Communication Motives scale integrates two prominent paradigms in behavioral sciences: the Uses and Gratifications (U&G) Theory and William Schutz’s Fundamental Interpersonal Relations Orientation (FIRO) Theory.

Uses and Gratifications Paradigm

Originally formulated in mass communication by researchers such as Elihu Katz, Jay Blumler, and Michael Gurevitch, Uses and Gratifications Theory assumes an active, goal-directed audience. Individuals intentionally choose specific media channels and content to satisfy cognitive, affective, tension-release, and integrative needs. Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) observed that interpersonal communication and mass communication fulfill functionally equivalent psychological needs. Alan M. Rubin and Rebecca B. Rubin (1985) articulated the conceptual interface between mass and personal communication channels, asserting that humans operate as cognitive decision-makers selecting whether to watch television, read, or converse with another human based on internal motivational states. The ICM scale translates U&G assumptions into dyadic encounters, positing that interpersonal communicators actively deploy interpersonal exchanges to obtain specific psychological gratifications.

Schutz’s FIRO Theory and Interpersonal Needs

The psychological taxonomy of the ICM scale is directly informed by William Schutz’s FIRO theory (1958, 1966), which established that human interpersonal behavior is animated by three interpersonal needs: Inclusion (the need to establish and maintain satisfactory relations with people regarding association and belonging), Control (the need to establish and maintain satisfactory relations regarding power, dominance, and authority), and Affection (the need to establish and maintain satisfactory relations regarding love, intimacy, and emotional closeness). Rubin et al. directly adopted Schutz’s three core social needs and expanded them to incorporate experiential and coping motives derived from U&G research, specifically adding Pleasure, Relaxation, and Escape. Consequently, the ICM integrates social-relational drives with psychological self-regulation processes.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the ICM scale has been confirmed through empirical examinations across diverse populations and communication contexts:

Construct and Factorial Validity

Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) established construct validity through principal components factor analysis with oblique rotation on an initial sample of 329 undergraduate students, replicating findings on an independent cross-validation sample of 342 participants. The derived six factors accounted for 58.7% of the total variance, demonstrating that the six motives represent discrete, identifiable cognitive constructs rather than a diffuse conversational impulse.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent and discriminant validity have been confirmed via correlations with validated psychological and communication inventories:

• Communication Apprehension: Rubin et al. (1988) demonstrated that communication apprehension (measured via McCroskey’s PRCA-24) correlates negatively with Pleasure (r = -.32, p < .001) and Control (r = -.18, p < .01), while displaying positive correlations with Inclusion among isolated individuals, confirming that communication apprehension inhibits reward-seeking interactions.
• Loneliness: Inclusion motives correlate positively with UCLA Loneliness Scale scores (r = .28, p < .01), whereas Pleasure and Affection motives correlate negatively with loneliness, demonstrating that isolated individuals converse out of a need for connection rather than communicative enjoyment.
• Interaction Involvement: Sun, Hullman, and Wang (2011) observed that interpersonal motives significantly predict interaction involvement (responsiveness, attentiveness, and perceptiveness). Communicators motivated by Pleasure and Affection display high levels of interaction involvement across multiple communication channels.
• Relational Satisfaction: In dyadic parent-child investigations, Heeman (2008) verified that young adult daughters’ motives of Affection and Pleasure toward fathers strongly predict relational satisfaction, whereas Escape and Control motives correlate with lower relational quality.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Graham, Barbato, and Perse (1993) validated the Interpersonal Communication Motives Model across the lifespan (ages 12 to 88), demonstrating that age significantly predicts ICM profiles. Older adults report higher Affection and lower Control and Escape motives compared to adolescents, confirming the scale’s sensitivity to developmental stages and interpersonal life priorities.

8. Reliability

The ICM scale demonstrates strong reliability across independent research investigations:

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

In the seminal validation study by Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988), the internal consistency coefficients (α) for the six subscales were reported as follows:

• Pleasure: α = .97 (8 items)
• Affection: α = .91 (5 items)
• Inclusion: α = .91 (4 items)
• Escape: α = .85 (4 items)
• Relaxation: α = .96 (4 items)
• Control: α = .81 (3 items)

Subsequent investigations across diverse samples have consistently corroborated these parameters. For instance, Graham et al. (1993) reported coefficients of .88 for Pleasure, .86 for Affection, .83 for Inclusion, .77 for Escape, .87 for Relaxation, and .72 for Control across a lifespan sample of 672 participants. Sun et al. (2011) observed composite reliability indices above .80 across all subscales in multichannel communication environments.

Test-Retest Stability

When evaluated as a dispositional trait measure over a four-week test-retest interval, the ICM subscales exhibit stability coefficients ranging from r = .71 to r = .84 (Rubin & Rubin, 1992), indicating that baseline communicative motives remain stable over time while retaining situational sensitivity when respondents are prompted with specific relational targets.

9. Factor Analysis

The dimensional structure of the ICM scale was initially established using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and subsequently validated through Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA):

Exploratory Factor Analysis Findings

During the scale development phase, Rubin et al. (1988) administered an initial pool of 64 candidate items generated from uses and gratifications literature and Schutz’s FIRO framework. Principal components analysis using an oblique (Promax) rotation was employed because interpersonal motives were hypothesized to be conceptually related yet empirically distinct. Items were retained only if they met two rigorous psychometric criteria: a primary factor loading ≥ .50 and secondary cross-loadings ≤ .30. This process eliminated ambiguous and redundant items, yielding a 28-item matrix across six distinct factors that explained 58.7% of the total variance.

Factor Loadings and Factor Structure

• Factor 1: Pleasure (8 items; Eigenvalue = 9.87; 35.3% variance explained). Items load between .62 and .88, capturing stimulation, fun, excitement, and enjoyment.
• Factor 2: Affection (5 items; Eigenvalue = 2.45; 8.8% variance explained). Items load between .65 and .84, capturing concern, helping, thanking, and emotional care.
• Factor 3: Inclusion (4 items; Eigenvalue = 1.48; 5.3% variance explained). Items load between .58 and .82, centering on sharing problems, companionship, and reducing loneliness.
• Factor 4: Escape (4 items; Eigenvalue = 1.15; 4.1% variance explained). Items load between .54 and .79, reflecting procrastination, passing time, and avoiding tasks.
• Factor 5: Relaxation (4 items; Eigenvalue = 0.88; 3.1% variance explained). Items load between .74 and .91, assessing unwinding, tension reduction, and tranquil rest.
• Factor 6: Control (3 items; Eigenvalue = 0.60; 2.1% variance explained). Items load between .60 and .79, indexing behavioral compliance and instrumental acquisition.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Subsequent CFA investigations across structural equation modeling frameworks demonstrate that the correlated six-factor model exhibits superior fit indices compared to single-factor or orthogonal models. Reported fit indices include χ²/df ratios between 1.85 and 2.40, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) values ranging from .92 to .96, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) values between .045 and .062, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .055, confirming factorial invariance across demographic segments.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) Scale
• Authors: Rebecca B. Rubin, Elizabeth M. Perse, and Carole A. Barbato (1988)
• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Questionnaire
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted, or online web-based survey
• Administration Time: Approximately 5 to 8 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents (12+), young adults, and adults across the lifespan
• Number of Items: 28 items
• Stem Options:
  • General Trait Stem: “I talk to others…” or “I communicate…”
  • Target-Specific Relational Stem: “I talk to [target, e.g., my father, my partner, my friend]…”
• Response Scale (5-point Likert format):
  • 1 = Not at all
  • 2 = Not much
  • 3 = Somewhat
  • 4 = A lot
  • 5 = Exactly
• Subscale Item Breakdown:
  • Pleasure (8 items): Items 1, 5, 6, 11, 13, 16, 17, 25
  • Affection (5 items): Items 3, 20, 22, 24, 26
  • Inclusion (4 items): Items 2, 7, 18, 23
  • Escape (4 items): Items 14, 15, 19, 21
  • Relaxation (4 items): Items 8, 9, 27, 28
  • Control (3 items): Items 4, 10, 12
• Scoring Procedures: All 28 items are positively keyed (no reverse-scored items). Subscale scores are calculated either by summing the numerical values of the items within each subscale or by calculating the mean score (sum divided by the number of subscale items). Mean scoring (scale of 1.00 to 5.00) is standard in academic literature to allow direct cross-subscale comparisons. There is no single aggregate total score; the instrument is evaluated as a multidimensional profile across the six distinct motivational domains.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Interpersonal Communication Motives (ICM) scale was published in 1988 in the journal Human Communication Research by the International Communication Association (ICA). The instrument was placed into the academic public domain for scientific, educational, non-commercial research, and clinical diagnostic applications. Scholars, educators, and clinicians are permitted to utilize, administer, and adapt the target stem of the ICM without paying licensing fees or securing explicit prior copyright clearance, provided that full scholarly attribution is accorded to Rubin, Perse, and Barbato (1988) in resulting publications and documentation.

For commercial reproduction, software redistribution, integration into fee-based assessment platforms, or inclusion within published commercial handbooks, formal permissions must be requested through Oxford University Press (the current publisher of Human Communication Research on behalf of the International Communication Association) or via the Copyright Clearance Center.

12. References

• Graham, E. E., Barbato, C. A., & Perse, E. M. (1993). The interpersonal communication motives model. Communication Quarterly, 41(2), 172–186. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379309369877
• Heeman, V. C. (2008). Interpersonal communication motives, satisfaction, and psychological well-being in father-young adult daughter relationships (Master’s thesis, Kent State University). OhioLINK Electronic Theses and Dissertations Center.
• Rubin, A. M., & Rubin, R. B. (1985). Interface of personal and mediated communication: A research agenda. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(1), 36–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/15295038509360060
• Rubin, R. B., Perse, E. M., & Barbato, C. A. (1988). Conceptualization and measurement of interpersonal communication motives. Human Communication Research, 14(4), 602–628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.1988.tb00169.x
• Rubin, R. B., & Rubin, A. M. (1992). Antecedents of interpersonal communication motivation. Communication Quarterly, 40(3), 305–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379209369844
• Schutz, W. C. (1958). FIRO: A three-dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. Rinehart & Company.
• Schutz, W. C. (1966). The interpersonal underworld. Science and Behavior Books.
• Sun, S., Hullman, G., & Wang, Y. (2011). Communicating in the multichannel age: Interpersonal communication motivation, interaction involvement and channel affinity. Journal of Media and Communication Studies, 3(1), 7–15. http://www.academicjournals.org/journal/JMCS/article-full-text-pdf/EF7FE7311173

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)