Trust in Close Relationships Scale

1. Abstract

The Trust in Close Relationships Scale (TCRS), developed by John G. Holmes, John K. Rempel, and Mark P. Zanna in 1985, is one of the most foundational and empirically validated psychometric instruments designed to evaluate interpersonal trust within romantic partnerships and dyadic attachments. Grounded in a developmental and cognitive-attributional model of relationship progression, the TCRS conceptualizes trust not as a static, monolithic sentiment, but as an evolving structural construct comprising three distinct hierarchical dimensions: Predictability, Dependability, and Faith. The instrument contains 17 self-report items administered on a 7-point Likert-type scale, typically indexed from -3 (“Strongly Disagree”) through 0 (“Neutral”) to +3 (“Strongly Agree”), or alternatively coded along a 1 to 7 continuum.

Extensive psychometric investigations have demonstrated that the TCRS possesses robust internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients regularly ranging from .70 to .86 across its subscales and overall composite score. Factor-analytic studies support the tripartite operationalization, demonstrating how cognitive assessments of a partner’s behavioral regularity (Predictability) and evaluations of characterological integrity (Dependability) provide the experiential scaffolding for emotionally grounded, forward-looking conviction (Faith). The scale demonstrates superior construct, convergent, and predictive validity, exhibiting systematic associations with relationship satisfaction, psychological safety, dyadic commitment, constructive conflict resolution, and self-disclosure, while remaining empirically distinguishable from generalized social trust and global social desirability. As a vital tool in social psychology, clinical marital therapy, and affective science, the TCRS continues to offer profound insights into the mechanisms through which romantic partners navigate vulnerability, risk, and interdependence.

2. Keywords

Trust in Close Relationships Scale, TCRS, interpersonal trust, close relationships, predictability, dependability, faith, dyadic interaction, relationship satisfaction, psychometrics

3. Authors

The Trust in Close Relationships Scale was formulated and psychometrically validated by a prominent research group at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada:

• John K. Rempel, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at St. Jerome’s University, federated with the University of Waterloo. Dr. Rempel’s seminal work centers on close relationship dynamics, interpersonal trust, emotional security, and romantic attachment processes.
• John G. Holmes, Ph.D. — Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Waterloo and a fellow of the Royal Society of Canada. Dr. Holmes is a world-renowned authority on interdependence theory, risk regulation models in intimate relationships, and the cognitive architecture of social bonds.
• Mark P. Zanna, Ph.D. — Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Zanna is widely celebrated for his groundbreaking scholarship in social cognition, attitude formation, cognitive dissonance, and social attribution phenomena.

4. Purpose

Interpersonal trust serves as the cornerstone of psychological security, emotional vulnerability, and long-term stability in intimate partnerships. The primary purpose of the Trust in Close Relationships Scale (TCRS) is to provide researchers, clinicians, and psychometricians with a fine-grained, theoretically guided assessment instrument capable of quantifying the specific cognitive and emotional facets that constitute a partner’s subjective experience of trust. Prior to the construction of the TCRS, empirical investigations of trust relied predominantly on generalized social trust inventories—such as Julian Rotter’s Interpersonal Trust Scale—which assessed an individual’s generalized expectancy regarding the trustworthiness of society, institutional figures, or humanity at large. Such macro-level metrics, however, demonstrated limited explanatory power when applied to the acute vulnerabilities, deep interdependence, and idiosyncratic attributional processes inherent to close, dyadic romantic attachments.

Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna designed the TCRS to resolve these theoretical and empirical shortcomings. The scale captures the precise mechanisms through which individuals appraise their partner’s past behavior, infer enduring dispositional qualities, and project emotional expectations into an inherently uncertain future. In clinical and counseling psychology, the TCRS functions as a diagnostic and evaluative tool for identifying relational fractures. Marital and family therapists utilize the instrument to pinpoint whether a couple’s distress stems from behavioral inconsistency (a deficit in predictability), perceived breaches of moral character and reliability (a breakdown in dependability), or a catastrophic collapse in emotional confidence and vulnerability (an absence of faith). In empirical relationship science, the measure is utilized to explore dyadic adjustment, attachment transitions, forgiveness following marital infidelity, communication patterns under stress, and the psychological mechanisms governing risk regulation and mutual interdependence.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct of trust within the TCRS is conceptualized as an evolving, multi-tiered attributional structure that reflects an individual’s confidence in the benevolent intentions, reliability, and responsiveness of their partner. Rather than treating trust as a static trait or an undifferentiated emotional state, the authors conceptualized trust as an organized cognitive hierarchy consisting of three fundamental components:

Predictability

Predictability represents the most concrete, empirically driven, and behavioral dimension of trust. It refers to the individual’s appraisal that their partner’s actions are consistent, stable, and recurrent across time and situations. When predictability is high, an individual experiences minimal volatility or arbitrary disruption in their day-to-day interactions. This dimension is largely grounded in direct observation and experiential data; it allows individuals to formulate accurate behavioral expectations and minimizes immediate cognitive dissonance or apprehension regarding their partner’s routine demeanor. However, predictability alone is insufficient to sustain profound emotional intimacy, as it relies on situational constraints and mechanical regularity rather than intrinsic benevolent motives.

Dependability

Dependability reflects a qualitative shift from observable behavioral routines to dispositional, characterological attributions. Within this dimension, the individual evaluates whether the partner possesses intrinsic qualities of personal integrity, honesty, reliability, and emotional resilience. Dependability involves an appraisal of how the partner acts when faced with opportunities to defect, betray, or neglect their relational duties. When an individual perceives their partner as dependable, they infer that the partner is motivated by an authentic, enduring commitment to their mutual welfare. In this stage, vulnerability becomes manageable because the partner’s character serves as an internal warranty against intentional harm or self-serving exploitation.

Faith

Faith constitutes the most abstract, psychologically sophisticated, and emotionally charged dimension of interpersonal trust. Faith represents an emotional conviction that transcends available empirical evidence and goes beyond verifiable history. It is defined as the individual’s profound sense of security that the partner will maintain unconditional emotional responsiveness, benevolent care, and loyalty in the face of an uncertain, unpredictable future or in completely novel situations where behavioral precedents do not exist. Faith represents a “psychological leap” across the void of uncertainty, enabling partners to expose their deepest vulnerabilities, confess perceived shortcomings, and confront unforeseen crises without fear of emotional abandonment or punitive retaliation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The architectural foundation of the TCRS is deeply anchored in classical attribution theory (Heider, 1958; Kelley, 1967, 1973), social exchange theory (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959), and developmental relationship models. Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985) proposed that interpersonal trust evolves along a cognitive-developmental continuum characterized by increasing levels of abstraction and emotional investment.

At the nascent stages of an interpersonal relationship, individuals possess little diagnostic information regarding their partner’s true character. Consequently, early trust is primarily anchored in Predictability, wherein the perceiver monitors the frequency, consistency, and stability of specific behaviors. As social interactions accumulate across diverse contexts, the perceiver engages in dispositional attribution processes, inferring that the partner’s benevolence and consistency are not merely situational artifacts, but reflect enduring personal virtues; this transition represents the emergence of Dependability.

Ultimately, as relationships deepen into profound interdependence, the cognitive capacity to compute probabilities becomes inadequate for managing existential vulnerability. To sustain intimacy, partners must develop Faith—a cognitive-affective schema that enables the individual to extrapolate beyond current behavioral observations. This framework directly complements attachment theory (Bowlby, 1969/1982; Hazan & Shaver, 1987), wherein secure attachment is characterized by an internalized working model of the other as reliably available and unconditionally supportive. Furthermore, it dovetails with the Risk Regulation Model developed by Murray, Holmes, and Collins (2006), which posits that individuals constantly modulate their personal investment and emotional vulnerability based on their confidence in their partner’s unyielding regard.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the TCRS has been extensively evaluated and corroborated across numerous empirical investigations spanning multiple decades:

• Construct Validity: Construct validity was established through confirmatory modeling demonstrating that the three proposed dimensions—Predictability, Dependability, and Faith—reflect distinct yet interrelated tiers of trust. Factor correlations show that while Dependability correlates positively with both Predictability and Faith, Faith exhibits the strongest predictive power regarding affective commitment and relational resilience.
• Convergent Validity: The TCRS exhibits robust, statistically significant positive correlations with established indices of relational functioning, including Zick Rubin’s Love Scale (r values typically ranging between .50 and .68), Spanier’s Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS), measures of emotional self-disclosure, perceived partner responsiveness, and Norton’s Quality of Marriage Index (QMI).
• Discriminant Validity: Research demonstrates that the TCRS measures interpersonal dynamics that are distinct from global, non-relational personality traits. The scale correlates weakly with generalized interpersonal trust (e.g., Rotter’s scale, r < .25) and shows negligible associations with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability indices, confirming that respondents do not merely endorse items to project idealized social personas.
• Predictive and Longitudinal Validity: Longitudinal studies demonstrate that baseline scores on the Faith and Dependability subscales prospectively predict couple longevity, adaptive coping during normative life transitions (such as the transition to parenthood), and rates of relational dissolution over multi-year intervals. High faith scores systematically predict lower hypervigilance, reduced destructive attributions during marital conflict, and an increased likelihood of constructive accommodation following partner transgressions.

8. Reliability

The Trust in Close Relationships Scale demonstrates exemplary reliability across clinical and non-clinical cohorts, diverse age demographics, and cultural adaptations:

• Internal Consistency: In the seminal validation study by Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985), the overall 17-item scale yielded an aggregate Cronbach’s alpha of .81. The individual subscales demonstrated strong to moderate internal consistencies tailored to their theoretical breadth: the Faith subscale exhibited an alpha of .80, the Dependability subscale demonstrated an alpha of .72, and the Predictability subscale achieved an alpha of .70. Subsequent studies across married, engaged, and cohabiting samples have replicated these metrics, frequently reporting aggregate alphas spanning between .82 and .88.
• Test-Retest Stability: Evaluation of temporal stability across intervals ranging from 4 weeks to 6 months indicates robust test-retest reliability coefficients (ranging from r = .74 to r = .83) in stable partnerships, indicating that while the scale captures structural stability, it remains appropriately sensitive to significant relational traumas or therapeutic interventions.
• Split-Half and Dyadic Reliability: Guttman split-half coefficients consistently surpass .78. Dyadic modeling confirms that the instrument demonstrates structural and metric invariance across both male and female partners, indicating that the scale items assess identical underlying constructs across genders without measurement bias.

9. Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the TCRS was originally derived via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) using principal components extraction accompanied by both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin) rotations. Rempel et al. (1985) examined a broad pool of relational statements administered to cohabiting and married couples, which consistently resolved into a distinct three-factor solution accounting for the majority of the common variance:

• Factor 1: Faith: Items loading heavily onto this factor (loadings typically ranging from .54 to .78) emphasize absolute emotional security, willingness to reveal perceived weaknesses, and an unwavering belief in the partner’s enduring care under novel, untested conditions.
• Factor 2: Dependability: Items loading onto this factor (loadings spanning .48 to .74) index moral character, trustworthiness when external constraints are absent, and fidelity in keeping core promises.
• Factor 3: Predictability: Items loading onto this factor (loadings spanning .46 to .72) capture behavioral regularity, the presence or absence of erratic mood swings, and the cognitive capacity to forecast daily actions.

Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) within structural equation modeling (SEM) paradigms has reinforced the hierarchical superiority of this tripartite model. Goodness-of-fit indices routinely meet conventional psychometric standards (e.g., Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .92; Tucker-Lewis Index [TLI] > .90; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] < .06; Standardized Root Mean Square Residual [SRMR] < .05), confirming that a multidimensional correlated three-factor framework provides a vastly superior fit compared to a single-factor unidimensional construct.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics and structural architecture of the Trust in Close Relationships Scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Trust in Close Relationships Scale (TCRS)
• Authors: John K. Rempel, John G. Holmes, and Mark P. Zanna (1985)
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire
• Target Population: Individuals in intimate dyadic partnerships (dating, cohabiting, engaged, or married)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil, computer-administered, or interactive digital survey
• Total Item Count: 17 items
• Subscale Composition:
  • Predictability (P): Items 4, 5, 6, 8, 14 (5 items assessing behavioral regularity and consistency)
  • Dependability (D): Items 1, 7, 13, 15, 17 (5 items assessing personal integrity, moral honesty, and reliability)
  • Faith (F): Items 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16 (7 items assessing emotional security, vulnerability, and confidence in future benevolence)
• Response Format: A 7-point Likert-type scale formatted with symmetric anchors centered at neutral:
  • -3 = Strongly Disagree
  • -2 = Disagree
  • -1 = Slightly Disagree
  • 0 = Neutral
  • 1 = Slightly Agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Strongly Agree

  (Note: In alternative computational implementations, items are mapped linearly onto a 1 to 7 continuum, where 1 indicates Strongly Disagree and 7 indicates Strongly Agree).

• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Negatively phrased items reflecting unpredictability, apprehension, or fear of emotional exposure (e.g., Items 4, 5, 6, 14) must be reverse-scored prior to composite calculation.
  • Subscale scores are computed by summing or averaging the corresponding items within each dimension (Predictability, Dependability, Faith).
  • An overall Global Trust composite score can be derived by summing all 17 items (following necessary reverse-coding), with higher aggregate scores reflecting higher systemic levels of interpersonal trust.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Trust in Close Relationships Scale was initially published in 1985 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, an academic journal published by the American Psychological Association (APA). The intellectual property rights governing the original published manuscript reside with the APA. However, consistent with normative conventions in academic psychometrics, the scale items and structure are widely accessible and permitted for use free of charge for non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and institutional scientific inquiry, provided that formal scholarly citation is attributed to Rempel, Holmes, and Zanna (1985). Clinicians, commercial entities, digital healthcare platforms, and proprietary developers intending to integrate the scale into monetized assessment batteries or commercial platforms should consult the APA Permissions Department or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) to obtain appropriate licensing agreements.

12. References

• Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment (2nd ed.). Basic Books. (Original work published 1969).
• Bradbury, T. N., & Fincham, F. D. (1990). Attributions in marriage: Review and critique. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 3–33. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.1.3
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
• Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1037/10628-000
• Kelley, H. H. (1973). The processes of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 28(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034225
• Murray, S. L., Holmes, J. G., & Collins, N. L. (2006). Optimizing assurance: The risk regulation system in relationships. Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 641–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.641
• Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
• Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust. Journal of Personality, 35(4), 651–665. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01454.x
• Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x
• Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. John Wiley & Sons.
• Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provisioning of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(1), 110–116. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.1.110

13. Items of the Scale