fei75766_ch18_569-609.indd 584  02/24/20 10:50 AM
Part VI    Learning-Cognitive Theories584
expectancies ofreinforcement andindicates thedegree towhich people generally 
believe thattheyareincontrol oftheirlives. 
Athird common misconception isthatthescale divides people intotwodistinct 
types—internals andexternals. Rotter (1975, 1990) insisted thatgeneralized expectan -
ciesimply agradient ofgeneralization andthat,incertain specific situations, aperson 
withgenerally highfeelings ofinternal control maybelieve thattheoutcome ofhisor
herbehavior isduemostly tofate,chance, orthebehavior ofpowerful others. 
Fourth, many people seem tobelieve thathighinternal scores signify socially 
desirable traits andthathighexternal scores indicate socially undesirable character -
istics. Actually, extreme scores ineither direction would beundesirable. Veryhigh
external scores might berelated toapathy anddespair, withpeople believing that
theyhavenocontrol overtheirenvironments, whereas extremely highinternal scores 
would mean thatpeople accept responsibility foreverything thathappens tothem—
business failure, delinquent children, other people’s misery, andthunder storms 
thatinterfere withplanned outdoor activities. Scores somewhere inbetween these 
extremes, butinclined inthedirection ofinternal control, would probably bemost 
healthy ordesirable.
Interpersonal Trust Scale
Another example ofageneralized expectancy (GE)thathasprovoked considerable 
interest andresearch istheconcept ofinterpersonal trust. Rotter (1980) defined 
interpersonal trustas“ageneralized expectancy heldbyanindividual thattheword, 
promise, oralorwritten statement ofanother individual orgroup canberelied on”
(p.1).Interpersonal trustdoesnotrefertothebelief thatpeople arenaturally good 
orthattheyliveinthebestofallpossible worlds. Neither should itbeequated with
gullibility. Rotter sawinterpersonal trustasabelief inthecommunications ofothers 
when there isnoevidence fordisbelieving, whereas gullibility isfoolishly ornaively 
believing thewords ofother people.
Because many ofourrewards andpunishments come from other people, we
develop generalized expectancies thatsome typeofreinforcement willfollow from 
verbal promises orthreats made byothers. Sometimes, these promises andthreats 
arekept; other times, theyarebroken. Inthisway,eachperson learns totrustor
distrust thewords ofothers. Because wehavedifferential experiences withthewords 
ofothers, itfollows thatindividual differences willexistamong people withregard to
interpersonal trust. 
Tomeasure differences ininterpersonal trust, Rotter (1967) developed an
Interpersonal Trust Scale, which asked people toagree ordisagree to25items that
assessed interpersonal trustand15filleritems designed toconceal thenature ofthe
instrument. Thescale isscored ona5-point gradation from strongly agree tostrongly 
disagree sothatstrongly agree andagree responses would indicate truston12items 
andstrongly disagree anddisagree responses would indicate trustontheother 13
items. Table 18.3reveals several sample items from Rotter’s Interpersonal Trust 
Scale. Scores foreachofthe25items areadded sothathighscores indicate thepres-
enceofinterpersonal trustandlowscores mean ageneralized expectancy ofdistrust.
Isitmore desirable toscore highorlowonthescale, tobetrustful ordistrustful? 
When trustisdefined independently ofgullibility, asRotter (1980) contended, thenFinal PDF to printer