Individual healing from infidelity and breakup for emerging adults: a grounded theory

Abstract

Objective: Infidelity is a relationship betrayal that can lead to significant negative individual and relational outcomes. When infidelity leads to relationship dissolution, this can further exacerbate these challenges. The purpose of the present study is to develop a grounded theory of the process of healing from infidelity and consequent relationship dissolution for non-straying partners who are emerging adults. Methods: We employed constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) to conduct and analyze semi-structured interviews with 22 emerging adults who had experienced infidelity in a dating relationship and were no longer with their former partner. Results: We present a grounded theory of the process of healing from infidelity and breakup for emerging adults consisting of four stages and three interrelated dimensions—emotional, relational, and personal—within a healing context of supportive relationships. Unhelpful contact with the former partner constituted a significant setback to healing. Conclusion: This study builds on previous research about healing from infidelity (O’Connor & Canevello, 2019) and relationship breakup (Hebert & Popadiuk, 2008) for emerging adults and highlights the importance of supportive relationships and attending to emotional, relational, and personal dimensions of healing. Our findings also suggest that clinical assessment and intervention should address these aspects of healing and be informed by elapsed time since infidelity and relationship dissolution.

Keywords

Infidelity healing emerging adults relationship breakup/dissolution psychology therapy

Introduction

Infidelity is a violation of relationship boundaries that can include physical, emotional, and sexual components (Fife et al., 2008,; Warach & Josephs, 2019). During emerging adulthood, a developmental life stage that spans from the late teen years to the mid-twenties, both infidelity and relationship dissolution are common (Norona, Olmstead, et al., 2017; O’Connor & Canevello, 2019). Infidelity is associated with negative outcomes for individuals and relationships, including distress, depression, and divorce or dissolution (Allen & Atkins, 2012; Bravo et al., 2017; Bird et al., 2007).

Despite the negative consequences of infidelity and consequent relationship dissolution, research suggests that many individuals find some degree of healing over time, even when their initial levels of distress were high (Laaser et al., 2017; O’Connor & Canevello, 2019). However, the process by which individuals move from initial distress to eventual growth following infidelity and consequent relationship dissolution has not been empirically examined. This is an important gap to fill because understanding common processes in healing will better inform clinical intervention with this population. Utilizing constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014), the purpose of this study is to develop a theory of healing from infidelity and subsequent relationship dissolution for non-straying partners who are emerging adults. Our sample was emerging adults (n = 22, mean age = 20.2) who had experienced a partner’s infidelity and were no longer in the relationship. We first review relevant research and summarize our methodological strategy and then present our grounded theory.

Emerging adulthood

Emerging adulthood is a developmental life stage characterized by personal and relational exploration and experimentation (Arnett, 2014; Bravo et al., 2017). This stage encompasses many transitions to adult living, including establishing intimate relationships. Romantic relationships in emerging adulthood are widely varied in terms of commitment level, emotional involvement, and relationship expectations (Arnett, 2014; Roberson et al., 2017). In general, however, relationships during this time period tend to be somewhat transitory, as evidenced by one survey of university students that found that 98% of them had experienced a breakup (Morris & Reiber, 2011) and another study of emerging adults that found that 40% of them had experienced a breakup in the last 20 months (Rhoades et al., 2011). Due to the high fluidity of these relationships, some have argued that they are categorically distinct from later, more stable relationships such as marriage (Norona, Olmstead, et al., 2017). To improve the specificity of our theory, we focus our analysis on emerging adults who were in dating relationships with their former partners.

Infidelity

Infidelity is a common phenomenon during emerging adulthood, although differing definitions of infidelity result in diffuse estimates of its prevalence. One study using university students found that approximately 20% of female students and 27% of male students had engaged in extradyadic oral, anal, or vaginal intercourse while in a committed relationship (Vail-Smith et al., 2010). Another study using university students found that approximately 11% of participants had engaged in extradyadic intercourse, 13% had engaged in extradyadic sexual behaviors other than intercourse, 22% had engaged in extradyadic kissing, and 44% had engaged in extradyadic caressing or hugging (Braithwaite et al., 2010). Despite its high prevalence, infidelity is associated with multiple negative outcomes, particularly for non-straying partners. Individuals who have experienced a romantic partner’s infidelity report high rates of depressive symptoms, anxiety, and distress (Roos et al., 2019; Shrout & Weigel, 2018; Warach & Josephs, 2019; Weeks & Fife, 2014). In some cases, non-straying partners develop symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Laaser et al., 2017; Roos et al., 2019; Warach & Josephs, 2019).

Warach and Josephs (2019) conducted an extensive review of the literature on negative outcomes of infidelity for non-straying partners and identified significant emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and physical consequences. In the emotional domain, non-straying partners experience high-intensity emotions, including betrayal, anger, sadness, and shame (Butler et al., 2021; Fife et al., 2008, 2013; Shrout & Weigel, 2018). Non-straying partners often blame themselves and can experience reduced self-esteem and diminished feelings of worth. Cognitive consequences of a partner’s infidelity include alterations in core beliefs about the dependability of one’s partner and of others generally (Butler et al., 2021; Warach & Josephs, 2019; Weeks & Fife, 2014). This can lead to diminished trust and a reduced likelihood of engaging in future romantic relationships. Behavioral consequences of a partner’s infidelity include maladaptive coping strategies and attempts to control a straying partner’s behavior (Shrout & Weigel, 2018). In terms of physical health, infidelity increases the risk of sexually transmitted infections and, if perceived as traumatic, may be related with reduced immune system functioning (Warach & Josephs, 2019).

Relationship dissolution

For a variety of reasons, many emerging adults experience multiple breakups in the process of forming a stable partnership (Norona, Olmstead, et al., 2017). While a significant portion of older couples who experience infidelity choose to stay together, infidelity is a salient predictor of relationship dissolution for emerging adults (Bravo et al., 2017). A survey of undergraduate students found that 98% of them had experienced at least one breakup (Morris & Reiber, 2011), while another study found that nearly 40% of emerging adults had experienced a breakup in the last 20 months (Rhoades et al., 2011). Clearly, leaning to navigate relationship dissolution is an important developmental task during emerging adulthood (Shulman & Connolly, 2013).

Some authors have argued that breakups during this time period serve the purpose of refining partner preferences and increasing relationship maturity and are thus not experienced as wholly negative (Norona, Roberson, et al., 2017). Nevertheless, evidence suggests that relationship dissolution during emerging adulthood is often distressing for both initiating and non-initiating partners (Hebert & Popadiuk, 2008; O’Sullivan et al., 2019). Following relationship dissolution, individuals commonly report increased depression and anxiety and reduced self-esteem (Kansky & Allen, 2018). Similarly, Sbarra and Ferrer (2006) found that having recently experienced a romantic breakup was related with increased anger and sadness.

Multiple authors have developed models of relationship dissolution, although these models are not directly focused on dissolution due to a betrayal such as infidelity. One prominent model is Rollie’s and Duck’s (2006) model of relationship breakdown, which consists of four stages: Intrapsychic, dyadic, social, and grave dressing. In their model, individuals first become dissatisfied with their relationship, then express this dissatisfaction directly or indirectly to their partner, and then communicate the impending end of their relationship to their social circle. In the process of communicating with their social circle, individuals engage in grave dressing, a term Rollie and Duck (2006) used to describe presenting oneself in the best possible light following the relationship dissolution.

Healing from infidelity and post-dissolution adjustment

As discussed above, both infidelity and relationship dissolution can lead to significant negative outcomes for non-straying partners. At the same time, many individuals also report experiencing growth and making meaning from these experiences (Laaser et al., 2017; Norona, Olmstead, et al., 2017). One useful lens for analyzing how individuals respond to infidelity and relationship dissolution is Lazarus’ and Folkman’s stress-coping model (1984). According to this model, the impact of stressful events (e.g., infidelity and relationship dissolution) is influenced by the degree to which individuals appraise them as stressful or non-stressful. Following this appraisal, individuals engage in either emotion-focused coping, managing the emotions caused by an unchangeable stressor, or problem-focused coping, directly responding to the stressor. In recent years, this model has been expanded to incorporate other forms of coping, such as meaning-focused coping and interpersonal coping (Folkman, 2010). This model suggests that as non-straying partners respond to infidelity and relationship dissolution with appropriate, multifaceted forms of coping, they will be able to positively adapt and experience growth.

While little research directly examines healing from infidelity for non-straying partners, multiple authors have proposed models of couple healing. Although not specifically tested, core components of these models may apply to individuals following post-infidelity dissolution. One of the most commonly suggested components of healing is forgiveness by the non-straying partner, which is conceptualized as both a contributor to and an outcome of healing (Baucom et al., 2011; Fife et al., 2013). Empirical research supports the importance of forgiveness for non-straying partners who remain in the relationship (Heintzelman et al., 2014; Laaser et al., 2017); it is unknown whether this is also salient for non-straying partners following relationship dissolution. These models also emphasize the importance of time passing, as evidenced by their progressive stages of healing (Baucom et al., 2011; Butler et al., 2021; Fife et al., 2013). Similarly, research suggests that time and perceived temporal distance are associated with forgiveness and moving on following an interpersonal transgression (Wohl & McGrath, 2007).

Other authors have explored factors that influence post-dissolution adjustment, although the cause of dissolution is generally not specified. Four well-supported positive influences on post-dissolution adjustment are distance from the former partner, making meaning out of the dissolution, actively coping with emotions, and social support. Hebert and Popadiuk (2008) identified distancing from the former partner as critical to allowing negative emotions to diminish. Similarly, multiple studies suggest that contact with a former partner following breakup can lead to slower healing (Sbarra & Emery, 2005) and lower quality of life (Rhoades et al., 2011). Several researchers have explored the influence of making meaning on post-dissolution adjustment (Hebert & Popadiuk, 2008; Norona, Roberson, et al., 2017; O’Sullivan et al., 2019). Their findings suggest that making meaning, such as by identifying reasons for the dissolution, allows individuals to move forward through their emotions toward growth. Research also suggests that actively coping with emotions leads to better post-dissolution adjustment (Hebert & Popadiuk, 2008; O’Connor & Canevello, 2019). Studying post-infidelity relationship dissolution specifically, O’Connor and Canevello (2019) found that deliberate, purposeful rumination on and processing of the infidelity predicted growth in the form of refinement of preferences for a future partner and readiness for a future relationship. Finally, social support, both generally (Hebert & Popadiuk, 2008) and with a new romantic partner (Barutçu Yıldırım & Demir, 2015; Spielmann et al., 2009), is associated with greater post-dissolution adjustment. Social support may be particularly salient in emerging adulthood, when relationships play a critical role (Arnett, 2014).

Purpose of the present study

Infidelity and relationship dissolution are common during emerging adulthood, with many non-straying partners experiencing significant negative outcomes and many reporting positive growth over time. Extant literature does not explore the process by which individuals transition from initial distress to healing and growth after their relationship ends following infidelity. Existing models of healing following infidelity that are focused on couples who choose to repair the relationship following infidelity have limited utility in informing intervention with these individuals (O’Connor & Canevello, 2019). The purpose of the present study is to examine the process of healing for emerging adult non-straying partners who experience dating infidelity and subsequent relationship dissolution. In doing so, we hope to lay the foundation for further investigation of healing for non-straying partners in other developmental life stages. The grand tour research question is, “What is the process of healing from infidelity and consequent relationship breakup for emerging adults?”

Methods

Constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) is a methodology that seeks to inductively and systematically develop theory that is “grounded” in participants’ data. Constructivist grounded theory was an ideal methodology given that no existing theory examines the process of healing from infidelity and breakup for emerging adults. In this approach, results are viewed as both emergent and constructed, with acknowledgment of the role of the researcher throughout the design and implementation of the study (Charmaz, 2014).

Data collection

Following Institutional Ethics Review Board (IRB) approval at a university in the southwestern United States, we conducted 45–60 min semi-structured interviews with 22 individuals who had experienced a partner’s infidelity in their dating relationships and were no longer with their partners. The interviews consisted of demographic questions and open-ended questions about the process of healing such as, “What are some significant experiences that helped you begin to move forward on a path toward healing?” We asked follow-up questions to further explore participants’ healing processes, such as, “Are there any other moments that you started to notice, ‘Oh, this was a healing moment for me?’” The interviews were conducted in person, over the phone, or using videoconferencing software and recorded via an audio-recorder. Following each interview, the audio recordings were uploaded onto a secure server. For each recording, one team member transcribed the interview and another team member checked the transcription for accuracy and ensured that identifying information had been removed.

Participants

Due to the potential influence of developmental life stage and relationship status on perception of infidelity and subsequent healing, we confined our sample to emerging adults who had experienced a partner’s infidelity. We included in our sample only non-straying partners who were emerging adults, not married at the time of the infidelity, and no longer with the partner with whom the infidelity occurred. Participants were recruited via advertising using word of mouth and the university’s email service with the subject line “Study on the Process of Healing from Infidelity.” In constructivist grounded theory, researchers study a wide span of individuals who have experienced a similar phenomenon and analyze core commonalities, nuance, and variation (Charmaz, 2014). We continued collecting data until we determined our sample represented a variety of experiences and populations and saturation was reached. The sample (n = 22) consisted of multiple genders (female = 16, male = 6), sexualities (heterosexual = 16, LGBTQIA = 3, missing = 3), religious preferences (Christian = 9, Muslim = 1, none = 8, missing = 4), and races and ethnicities (Black = 2, biracial = 4, Hispanic = 2, White = 11, Asian = 1, missing = 2). The age range of the sample was 18–26, with a mean age of 20.2. Participants reported a wide range of relationship lengths at the time of infidelity (range = 2 months to 8 years, mean = 23 months, median = 14 months) and length of time since the infidelity (range = 3 weeks to 4 years, mean = approximately 16 months, median = 12 months). Fifteen participants reported experiencing sexual/physical infidelity, with five reporting a mix of emotional and probable sexual/physical infidelity and two reporting only emotional infidelity.

Data analysis

Following Charmaz’s constructivist grounded theory approach (2014), we used open, focused, and theoretical coding procedures. The research team began coding and analysis after the transcription of the first interview and continued data analysis concurrently with data collection, with previous interviews and analysis informing subsequent interviews. During the open coding process, we stayed close to the language of our participants and used gerunds to identify actions. Each member of the research team coded the first transcript and presented their preliminary codes in the subsequent research meeting. As additional interviews were transcribed, at least two members of the research team individually coded each transcript and reported in team meetings on aspects of the process of healing they had identified.

During focused coding, we individually created analytic memos and collectively discussed prominent codes and considered potential categories and themes that could provide useful abstractions on these codes. In cases where there were discrepancies in codes between team members, we examined exemplary quotes and discussed the codes’ meaning until we reached a consensus. As key categories and constructs were identified, we created a codebook that organized the codes and revealed areas that required further data and analysis. We recoded transcripts with these constructs and categories in mind (Charmaz, 2014).

During the theoretical coding process, we theorized how the constructs developed in focused coding might interact with each other and analyzed evidence of this in the data. Each member of the research team constructed a possible model of the process of healing from infidelity and presented evidence from the data that supported their model. Members of the research team reviewed specific processes and searched the data for evidence of how these processes unfolded and presented their findings to the research team. Using memos and regular team meetings, the research team deliberated on each team member’s provisional model and co-constructed a comprehensive though parsimonious theory that accurately reflected the healing process reported by the participants. Through constant comparison (Charmaz, 2014), the resulting working model was actively refined as additional interviews were transcribed and previous interviews were re-analyzed. We determined that we had reached theoretical saturation when no new themes were found in multiple additional interviews.

Reflexivity and trustworthiness

Researcher reflexivity and trustworthiness are hallmarks of establishing credibility in qualitative research (Charmaz, 2014). To promote these practices throughout the study, we used reflexive memos and team meetings to acknowledge and attempt to understand how our social positions, previous study of infidelity, and clinical experience influenced our research. Throughout analysis, each member of the research team kept regular memos to aid in the analytic process and improve the trustworthiness of the analysis (Saldana, 2016).

Our research team consisted of a university professor, three graduate students, and one undergraduate student. Three of the team members have conducted research on infidelity previously and have worked with infidelity clinically. Two team members are licensed therapists who work regularly with clients healing from infidelity, and two are therapists-in-training. Three of the team members are married. We believe that healing from infidelity does occur and assume there are commonalities in this healing process. The first author provided in-depth training to the research team on coding, memoing, and the purpose of team analysis. The research team met regularly throughout the study to ensure multiple perspectives on coding and analysis; to facilitate this, every team member had an equal voice during team meetings, regardless of experience level. Because at least two members of the research team coded each interview transcript, team members were able to discuss intercoder agreement in their analysis and receive feedback from the entire research team on the meaning and applicability of codes and categories.

Team meetings also provided a venue to share analytic memos, discuss reflexivity, and explore whether our interpretations were grounded in the data or our experiences as clinicians and researchers. Only conceptualizations firmly based in the data were included in our theory. For example, early in the study, we conceptualized infidelity as traumatic. However, after examining and discussing evidence from the data, we determined that there was insufficient participant data to justify using this conceptualization for every participant. This realization led us to consider the contexts of our participants, including relationship duration and life stage, which shifted our analysis and led to a theory firmly grounded in our data.

Results

Our analysis of participants’ experiences led us to organize the process of healing into four progressive stages, each with three dimensions: emotional, relational, and personal (see Figure 1). Within each stage of the model, we address each dimension in turn and examine how supportive relationships provided a healing context during that stage of healing. The four stages of our model are initial aftermath, the challenges participants experienced following discovery; learning to heal, incorporating efforts to cope with emotions, make space for healing, and focus on self; evolving healing, capturing participants’ ability to process emotions, nurture relationships, and make meaning; and deepening healing, the culmination of participants’ efforts to move on emotionally, humanize and forgive their partner, and rebuild trust in themselves.

Figure 1.

Individual healing from infidelity.

As participants moved forward in their healing, each dimension of healing supported and strengthened the others, leading to a tightly woven, interconnected whole. To capture this understanding, we selected a braid or a rope as the visual analogy for our model. One of the weaknesses of stage-based models is that they can convey a progressive uniformity and inevitability that is inaccurate (Rollie & Duck, 2006). We acknowledge from the outset that healing is not uniform and that participants could be further along in one dimension than in others or revisit an earlier process in response to setbacks; however, our model tracks the general components and progression of healing described by our participants.

Initial aftermath

The initial aftermath stage captures those challenges participants reported following discovery of infidelity and includes experiencing intense emotions, relationship ambiguity, and life stage and context-specific challenges.

Experiencing intense emotions

Whether our participants reported that their partners had engaged in sexual/physical infidelity (n = 15), emotional and probable sexual/physical infidelity (n = 5), or only emotional infidelity (n = 2), all participants reported experiencing intense emotions following discovery. Whether the infidelity came as a shock or whether they had suspected it, participants described a period of intense anger and sadness in the days and weeks following discovery. Regardless of the specific emotions a person experienced, the extreme intensity of the emotions was ubiquitous. One participant reported, “I remember right after… I was crying and crying and sobbing and just a mess.” Another participant shared, “Once finding it confirmed… I was pretty pissed for a perfect two weeks, maybe three.” As this quote shows, some participants reported experiencing this emotional intensity for a relatively brief time, whereas others reported longer amounts of time before the intensity of their emotions decreased. Participants reported that they had to allow themselves to be hurt by the infidelity. One participant remarked, “For so long I was trying to not let it hurt me… [but] if I wasn’t going to let myself get hurt about it then I would’ve never healed from it either.”

Relationship ambiguity

Another challenge participants reported shortly after discovery was deciding whether or not to stay with their partner. For some, it was an easy decision. One participant detailed, “The first thing I did was just cut that person off completely.” For others, it was difficult. They reported being uncertain about whether the relationship was automatically over or whether they should try to repair it. One participant gave voice to this uncertainty, questioning, “What do we do now? Because we were, I mean, it was a pretty long relationship, so it was kind of like do we work this out or is this it?” After discovering the infidelity, several participants attempted to repair the relationship, with some seeking counseling. Due to the nature of our sample, all of our participants were no longer with their partners at the time of data collection. However, even months later, some participants still reported wondering if they had made the right choice.

Life stage and context-specific challenges

Many participants reported that their partners’ betrayal resulted in a variety of challenges tied to their developmental life stage and unique context. Several participants reported that the infidelity happened in high school or prior to attending college. Because of this, they reported challenges from the infidelity during high school and the transition to college and adult responsibilities. One participant who had experienced infidelity in high school explained that following the infidelity her partner had “started talking about me to all of my friends and all of our mutual friends. And so that was really difficult because it started spreading rumors about me that weren’t true.” These rumors spread easily because of her social context as a high school student. A critical component of the context was relationship duration and commitment level, with participants who had been with their partners for longer periods of time reporting a greater incidence of context-specific challenges. One participant who had been with her former partner for 6 years and intended to attend university together reported, “He had gotten admission to this school. And that made me feel like it should have been one of the happiest days of my life… but we’re not together anymore.”

Healing context

During the initial aftermath, participants described multiple actions from supportive others that helped them in their healing. In talking about their experience with others, participants reported feeling like they were not alone and were able to express some of their emotions. One participant explained, “I was definitely mad. Like, the whole month. And I just needed some people to talk to and to let out that anger.” For participants who were uncertain about ending the relationship, supporters offered validation and support. One participant reported that her grandmother had helped her to recognize that she deserved better and that this had helped her to end the relationship. Supportive others also helped participants manage their context-specific challenges, such as by helping them establish new friend groups.

Learning to heal

In the learning to heal stage, participants reported various intentional efforts they took to begin moving forward in healing, including coping with emotions, making space for healing, and focusing on self. Inherent in this stage was participants’ uncertainty about what actions would lead to healing; over time, they learned how they personally could heal.

Coping with emotions

Shortly after discovery, most participants reported that they did not know how to deal with the intense emotions they experienced. As a result, they engaged in negative coping behaviors, such as drinking, rebound relationships, meaningless sexual relationships, and partying, that they later identified as hindering their emotional processing. Over time, participants learned to cope with their emotions in more constructive ways. Two common coping methods were engaging in self-care behaviors and challenging negative thoughts.

Multiple participants reported that actively engaging in self-care behaviors, such as exercise, traveling, meditation, and spirituality, helped to diminish the intensity of their emotions. One participant remarked, “I am going to go do XYZ thing because I have to be moving and I have to be releasing this.” Another participant reported, “For me healing would be more like when I meditate or drink tea or I read and I write.” In this regard, several participants highlighted the role of therapy in teaching them how to recognize and respond to their emotions.

Other participants took a more cognitive approach as they learned to heal, coping with emotions by trying to challenge the thoughts they had, including pushing negative thoughts away, trying to change the content of their thoughts, or comparing their old and current life situations. For example, one individual described, “Through time, I was able to clear my head of those negative thoughts.” Another participant explained, “I feel better, I have more time for myself, and when I weigh things like how it was before and how it is now, that feeling helps me a lot to heal.” Participants reported that when they ruminated on thoughts and feelings about their former partner or the infidelity, it was unhelpful to their progress. As one participant noted, “You can’t get positive outcomes” by brooding on a former partner’s actions.

Making space for healing

One of participants’ earliest responses to discovering their partners’ infidelity was to distance from their former partners and the context of the infidelity and to engage in new experiences to distract themselves from what had happened. Participants emphasized that their need for distance included emotional, physical, and digital disengagement. One participant elaborated, “I remember feeling that I had to physically distance myself, but also emotionally and digitally, especially. I remember blocking him on everything and deleting pictures of us, just so I wouldn’t see any reminders.” Several participants reported that limiting social media was a particularly important way to make space because social media connected them to their former partners and exposed them to romantic relationships in general. One participant explained, “deleting numbers and people off of social media, I think was useful… because then you can’t just go around being like, ‘I don’t have a good fall back, maybe I should like go back to this person.’”

Participants also reported engaging in multiple distractions to shift their focus away from what they had experienced. Several common distractions were traveling, school or work, and exercising. Possibly due to the transient nature of emerging adulthood, many of our participants reported that “leaving town to go to school,” “immersing myself in my study abroad experience,” or “taking a break to just travel and get out of town,” helped them create space for healing.

Focusing on self

In responding to infidelity and relationship dissolution, participants reported an initial need to focus on themselves. For many of our participants, their relationship with their former partner was characterized by consistently sacrificing their needs and interests to fit the whims of their partner. In their healing process, participants reported needing to prioritize themselves over their former partner. One participant reported, “I had to put myself first and I had to focus on myself and know why I was important.” Another participant explained, “Before it was like whatever was best for our relationship or whatever was best for [him]” but that “now it’s more about myself. I guess I can be selfish when I want, I mean in times when you should be selfish.”

A related aspect of focusing on self was identifying and making efforts to meet their own needs and desires. One participant reported that she worked on remodeling her personal space and then recounted, “I remember that being important to me… because I was working and building on myself. I could take time alone without being lonely.” Another participant shared, “I drink tea every day. I meditate,… I garden, I make bread, shit that makes me happy.” By engaging in these behaviors, whatever their form, participants focused on those things that mattered to them.

Healing context

Throughout their healing process, many participants sought support from therapists and friends. Multiple participants emphasized that therapy helped them to cope with their emotions, like one participant who sought therapy because, “I had never been through such an emotional toll kinda thing, so I was like, ‘I need to reach out and get some help from a professional because I didn’t know how to deal with it myself.’” Some participants directly connected their ability to make and maintain space with receiving support from their friends. One participant who maintained contact with her former partner following breakup was told by her friend that, “Dude, if you don’t quit talking to him and hanging out with him, you’re never going to get over this.” The support of her friend helped her to make space from her former partner. For some of our participants, connecting with spirituality, faith, or a religious community played a significant role in focusing on themselves and coping with emotions. Some reported going back to church for the first time in years and finding hope and strength in their faith. One participant remarked, “I fell back on [my faith] for a bit, just to regain my strength and regain that stability.”

Evolving healing

In the evolving healing stage, participants built on their earlier, intentional efforts to learn to heal. While coping, making space, and focusing on self continued to be important, participants now transitioned toward processing their emotions, nurturing new or different relationships, and making meaning of their experience.

Processing emotions

After coping with the painful emotions caused by the infidelity and breakup, participants intentionally processed them. For nearly all participants, processing their emotions involved expressing them to supportive others. One participant explained, “It helps to talk about because if I just bottle it all up, that’s how you explode.” Another participant reported that telling the story of the infidelity to his therapist, mother, and sister without making it funny or exaggerating his former partner’s flaws was an essential component of his emotion processing.

In processing their emotions, participants reported taking a step back, realizing how the infidelity impacted them, and choosing how to respond. One participant explained that by talking with her friends and family, she “realized being mad about it wasn’t going to change anything and… staying mad about it and staying sad about it wasn’t going to help me; it wasn’t going to help me move forward.” As a result, she chose to let go of these emotions.

Nurturing relationships

In the process of healing, participants reported nurturing their relationships—existing and new—with family, friends, or both. Some participants confided in their family members. One participant explained, “my friends also left with the relationship. So I just, I kind of had family at that time. And so I became really closer to my mom.” Other participants emphasized nurturing relations with friends. One participant explained, “I definitely couldn’t have done it on my own, so I had a lot of friends, and that helped too because I don’t think I spent a lot of time by myself after that. I think I was with a lot of friends.”

Half of our participants (n = 11) reported that they were in a new romantic relationship at the time of data collection. Some participants reported that they had intentionally not engaged in new romantic relationships until they were confident that they would not damage their new partner. One participant explained his reason for waiting to initiate a new romantic relationship, “I was wondering if I can get in a relationship right after to like keep my mind away from it. But then again, I just didn’t want to like hurt anyone else.”

Most participants in new romantic relationships reported that their new partners were integral to their healing. Several noted how their new partners were more respectful, open, and honest with them than their former partners had been. One participant gave the credit for her healing to her new partner and to her support network. She explained, “I guess that’s what healed, is just talking with other people and then finding someone who like actually values what I have to say and what I’m doing.” One way in which new partners helped facilitate healing was by validating participants’ fears and previous experience of infidelity and being overtly supportive, which expanded participants’ ability to trust them. One participant explained the process of beginning a new relationship, remarking, “There’s just that leap of faith, of just letting go and letting yourself out to like the other person… And them coming in with open arms, it just really solidified that what I was doing was not so scary.”

Making meaning

Several of our participants reported that moving forward from the infidelity involved making meaning of their experience. One participant explained that understanding her role and purpose in relationships was key to making meaning, “It was one thing to realize, ‘okay I’m not meant to be an object of use for a man.’ But it was another to find out, ‘okay, so what am I supposed to be?’” She reported that after finding an answer to this question, “That’s when the anger went away, and the forgiveness was able to come. Because I had an answer of what I am supposed to do.” Her experience illustrates the healing influence of making meaning. Several other participants reported making sense of the infidelity by believing that “things happen for a reason.” Beliefs like this helped them to let go of their anger or pain by incorporating the infidelity into a broader view of life. One participant explained, “That is not in any way excusing what happened, but it was just kind of like, ‘things happen’ and I’m a very much ‘things happen for a reason’ person, and so if that needed to happen… then that’s cool too.”

Despite referring to the infidelity and breakup as painful, participants did not report that it was entirely negative. Instead, nearly all participants reported that healing from the infidelity had resulted in positive growth for them and made them a better partner. One participant explained, “I don’t think I would go back and change anything just because going through all of that and experiencing all of that—as horrible as it was—improved a lot of my relationships with myself and other people.”

Healing context

Participants reported that therapists, friends, and family were helpful in processing and moving forward through their experience. One participant shared how having a therapist in addition to friends and family helped support their healing, explaining, “It’s great to have someone who’s non-biased and has… information for me. But I also needed that kind of emotional comfort, so that would come from my friends, or my mom.” Participants were helped in making meaning by gaining perspective from others. For some participants, this perspective came when others shared their experiences of healing from infidelity; for others, the perspective came from supportive others experiencing adversity. One participant explained that a significant challenge in her family put the infidelity in perspective, leading her to realize that “I had a relationship, it didn’t work out, but that wasn’t the end of the world.”

Deepening healing

In the deepening healing stage, participants reported the cumulative effect of their efforts to heal over time. While some participants emphasized that they did not feel fully healed, deepening healing was characterized by moving on emotionally from the former partner, humanizing or forgiving the former partner, and rebuilding trust in and forgiving themselves.

Moving on emotionally

After participants had distanced from their partner for a time and begun to cope in healthy ways, their emotional experience began to change. Several participants reported they were no longer angry with their partners, having developed a more benevolent posture toward them; other participants became apathetic toward their former partners but were no longer actively angry. Participants moved on emotionally by expressing their emotions and by changing their behaviors, circumstances (e.g., new romantic relationship, starting college or a job, and traveling), or perspective. For some participants, moving on emotionally involved forgiveness. After prolonged effort, one participant explained, “I felt at peace almost with the forgiveness. And I felt like I had completed a cycle, where now that I had reached the end of it, it was time to let go.” Another participant explained with some surprise, “When I did finally come to a place where I can forgive him, I wasn’t mad anymore. I wasn’t angry.” She continued, “I knew I had been there and holding on and thinking, ‘Oh I could never forgive you,’ that was just holding me back from moving on more.”

For other participants, moving on emotionally involved less emotional involvement in the former relationship. One participant shared, how her longing for her former partner changed when she entered a new romantic relationship, explaining, “Getting into a new relationship definitely cut off any sentimentally I had for the old relationship, as shriveled and dried up as it was in my mind.” Another participant expressed how her initial anger toward her former partner had evolved into relief and gratitude for not being in the relationship anymore, explaining, “I know now that he’s married, and he has a kid on the way. And I’m like, ‘Ugh, thank God that’s not me, because I think you suck.’ But it’s not, like, an anger now, it’s like an ‘Ugh, thank goodness.’”

Humanizing former partner and forgiveness

Many participants reported that over time they were able to humanize and forgive their former partners and that this had been helpful to their healing. Other participants reported that they had not necessarily forgiven their partners but that they had moved on from actively being angry with them. Several participants used the word “humanize” to describe this process. Participants accomplished this humanizing in various ways, but two common methods were learning about their partners’ past and observing their former partners’ current challenges. For example, after watching her former partner struggle financially, one participant reported that, “I saw what he was going through, and it kind of humanized him… it kind of made me realize that, you know, like, we’re all growing as people.”

For some participants, humanizing their partner led to forgiveness. One participant explained, “It took me a lot of work with my therapist to forgive myself first and then to understand her and after a little while forgive her.” In this regard, some of our participants found it helpful for their former partners to apologize; this was most likely to be helpful when the agreed upon purpose of the conversation was to find closure. While some participants re-established regular contact with their former partners, the majority did not do so.

Forgiving and trusting self

As a result of the infidelity, participants commonly reported directing anger at themselves and losing trust in themselves, either because they had not anticipated the infidelity or because they had ignored warning signs of it. For many participants, forgiving themselves and learning to trust themselves was one of the hardest components of healing; several participants reported that they were “still working” on doing so.

Participants were able to forgive themselves as they recognized and accepted their mistakes, allowing themselves to move forward from them. Though faithful to his partner, one participant reflected on his own behaviors in his past relationship, “These are my mistakes. I had to forgive myself. But the forgiveness was on the stipulation that I grow as a person.” As this participant made clear, forgiving himself was integrally connected to growing and changing from who he had been at the time of the infidelity. Another participant reported that she was able to forgive herself as she tried to learn from her experience, saying, “Just because I made one mistake didn’t mean that I was going to continue to make that mistake. If anything, I was going to learn from it.” A number of participants also connected their ability to forgive themselves to their religious beliefs.

Some participants reported that trusting themselves again was more difficult than forgiving themselves. For participants who were in new romantic relationships, rebuilding their trust in themselves involved honoring their sense of red flags in the relationship and expressing them to their partners. For example, one participant who felt uneasy about her current partner’s behavior confronted him about his actions; she reported, “He didn’t make me feel like I was being ridiculous, and then he offered complete openness.” This helped her to regain her trust in herself. For participants who were not in romantic relationships at the time of the interview, rebuilding trust involved focusing on themselves and coming to know themselves better. One participant explained, “Just working on myself, and hanging out with my friends and stuff was a big part in that … because I wasn’t trying to go into another relationship or anything like that. It helped me trust myself.”

Healing context

Multiple participants reported that their supporters encouraged them to move forward with their lives following the infidelity and breakup. One participant explained, “[Your friends will] let you feel it for a bit, but they won’t throw you a whole pity party… Like maybe half a pity party. But then it’s a, ‘Let’s get on the road.’” As this participant made clear, her friends allowed her to feel her emotions, but actively encouraged her to do something with her feelings rather than linger in them. In multiple instances, participants described the role of healing conversations with others in humanizing and forgiving their former partners. Our participants particularly referenced therapists, parents, and new partners as being helpful in this regard. One participant reported that while her friends’ validation of her hurt had actually increased her anger, her mother’s gentle encouragement to move forward had helped her to let go of the pain. She reported that her mother “definitely brought me back down to earth a few times.”

Setbacks

In addition to actions and interactions that facilitated healing, participants reported experiencing setbacks in their healing. The most common setback was unhelpful contact with their former partner, particularly early on. For many of our participants, undesired or negative contact occurred multiple times, whether as a result of shared friend groups and proximity, their former partners’ deliberate efforts to contact them, or participants’ own efforts to maintain a relationship with them. One participant explained that her former partner’s efforts to contact her “puts you right back in that situation where you’re like, ‘Oh, once again you don’t care about how this makes me feel!’” Another participant explained, “Every time I talk to him again, even though I do want to see him when I go down because I miss him… It’s like it opens up new wounds and I have to relive that all over again.”

Participants worked through these setbacks in a variety of ways, including processing them with others, focusing on positives, and using them as markers of progress. One participant explained that he responded to setbacks by focusing on the positives. He emphasized, “[After setbacks,] you’re like, ‘I want to feel better.’ And so you start to notice more little [positive] things throughout the day.” Another participant shared how she accepted that setbacks were part of healing, “Sadness or anger still comes occasionally. In the middle of the night, I start crying for no reason… these are the setbacks, but I have learned to take them as a part of the process.”

Time

Multiple participants reported that time passing facilitated their healing. While the simple passing of time did not in and of itself lead to healing, participants’ efforts to heal came to fruition over time. In this regard, we note that as the time since infidelity and relationship dissolution increased, participants reported more responses typical of later stages of our model. One participant whose relationship ended 3 weeks prior to the interview explained, “I haven’t quite gotten to that stage yet [of forgiveness]. I want to.” In contrast, after an extended period of time spent working on healing, another participant noticed, “Eventually, I was kind of like, ‘Oh, that doesn’t make me feel any sort of way anymore.’” Additionally, as time passed, participants engaged in more activities that were not related to their former partner and the infidelity, naturally diminishing the salience of the infidelity. One participant observed, “The farther we got away from the relationship, it sort of turned nostalgic … I only saw the good parts. Because those were the parts that I wanted to remember.”

Discussion

We have presented a grounded theory of healing from infidelity and relationship breakup for emerging adults organized into four progressive stages and three interrelated dimensions. Our model of healing suggests that in the initial aftermath of infidelity, individuals may experience intense emotions, relationship ambiguity, and other challenges specific to their life circumstances. As they seek to respond to these challenges, they engage in a process of learning to heal, including actively coping with their emotions, making space for healing, and focusing on their own needs and interests. Over time, their healing process transitions to processing their emotions, nurturing new relationships, and making meaning. Their healing gradually deepens as they move on emotionally, humanize or forgive their former partner, and forgive and trust themselves.

Our results suggest the complex interplay between emerging adults’ emotional, relational, and personal dimensions throughout the healing process. We observed that healing in one dimension in one stage facilitated healing in other dimensions and progression toward later stages. For example, as participants made space for healing, they were better able to both cope with and process their emotions. In turn, as participants processed their emotions, they were better able to make meaning out of their experience and humanize or forgive their former partners. At the same time, this does not imply that healing occurred at the same rate in each dimension. Furthermore, setbacks illustrate that healing does not occur in a smooth, continuous manner.

Emerging adulthood is a complex, multifaceted developmental life stage in which relationships play a vital role (Arnett, 2014). Consistent with this understanding, our results highlight the essential role of supportive relationships throughout healing, which we described as a critical healing context. Whether this support came from family, friends, new romantic partners, mentors, bosses, or therapists, participants reported that positive, encouraging, and validating interactions within their support networks facilitated healing throughout all stages and along each dimension.

Humanizing, forgiving, or moving on from former partner

Our model of healing suggests a process by which humanizing, forgiving, or moving on from a former partner occurs. Early in healing, nearly all participants reported distancing from their former partner. This is consistent with Hebert’s and Popadiuk’s (2008) finding that distancing physically, emotionally, and symbolically is an important aspect of healing. As the participants in our study sought and maintained this distance, their focus shifted from preserving the relationship to moving on from it. Most participants reported that contact with their former partners during this period constituted a setback in their healing. Previous research supports our finding that contact with a former partner shortly after breakup can negatively impact the healing process and overall well-being (Rhoades et al., 2011; Sbarra & Emery, 2005).

Later in healing, half of our participants began new romantic relationships. These participants emphasized that investing in their new romantic relationships enabled them to emotionally move on from their former partners, which is supported by previous research (Barutçu Yıldırım & Demir, 2015; Spielmann et al., 2009). As they nurtured existing and new relationships, coped with their emotions, and made meaning out of their experience, participants’ emotions toward their former partners began to change. Some of our participants reported humanizing or forgiving their former partner, whereas others reported relinquishing their anger toward them. In both cases, participants reported that the time that had passed helped diminish the emotional intensity they experienced.

Our findings support the importance of humanizing and forgiving or relinquishing anger in facilitating healing following relationship dissolution. Many of our participants explained that they had humanized and forgiven their former partners and that this had enabled them to move on emotionally from the previous relationship. This is consistent with previous research on the role of forgiveness in healing following infidelity for couples who choose to stay together (Baucom et al., 2011; Fife et al., 2013; Heintzelman et al., 2014; Laaser et al., 2017) and suggests that forgiveness can be a viable path to growth and healing following relationship dissolution. At the same time, other participants reported that they had not forgiven their partners but instead had relinquished their anger toward them. These participants endorsed the emotional peace they had experienced as they became apathetic toward their partners. This suggests that for individuals who do not remain with their partners, relinquishing of anger or forgiveness may both be viable paths for healing. Future research with older individuals in more committed relationships should explore the roles of forgiveness and relinquishing of anger toward a former partner in facilitating healing.

Comparisons between models of healing

Our results build on previous literature about relationship dissolution and subsequent healing. The grounded theory of individual healing supports the importance of the intrapsychic, dyadic, and social processes of dissolution proposed by Rollie and Duck (2006). In the initial aftermath stage of our model, participants experienced intense negative emotions about the relationship, a form of intrapsychic processing. Dyadic processes of dissolution were also important, as represented by some participants immediately communicating to their partners that the relationship was over, while other participants wrestled with uncertainty over whether the relationship was salvageable or not. Multiple participants quickly engaged in social processes of dissolution by discussing the infidelity with their friends and family and receiving support to end the relationship. Many of our participants engaged in intrapsychic, dyadic, and social processes simultaneously. As participants were involved in these processes, new and strengthened relationships offered essential scaffolding for healing. While our findings support many aspects of Rollie’s and Duck’s (2006)Rollie and Duck’s (2006) model, they also suggest that the process of dissolution due to a betrayal is noticeably distinct from dissolution due to other causes. More than simply grave dressing the relationship to depict themselves as socially justified (Rollie & Duck, 2006), our participants reported needing to trust themselves again, humanize their former partner, and move on emotionally from the betrayal and the relationship. Our data allow us to go beyond the dissolution itself to explore ways in which individuals coped with, made meaning of, and moved forward from the infidelity following relationship dissolution.

Our theory is also consistent with Hebert’s & Popadiuk’s (2008) three stage model of healing following relationship dissolution. The first stage of their model focused on initial distress and feelings of loss. Similarly, our participants reported experiencing intense emotions and questioning whether the relationship was fully over. In addition, our participants reported needing to navigate multiple challenges early on due to their developmental life stage and context. The second stage of their model focused on distancing from the former partner and coping behaviorally and cognitively with emotions. Participants in our sample similarly endorsed the importance of making space from their former partner to their healing. Our participants also reported actively focusing on themselves during this time period and exploring their needs and interests. While Hebert and Popadiuk (2008) emphasized making meaning early in the process, our participants emphasized it later in the process, once they could see evidence of growth. The third stage of their model focused on feeling reduced distress and growing from the relationship dissolution. Our model suggests that social support from family, friends, and therapists is a key contributor to moving through the healing process. Our finding that new relationships can play a pivotal role in healing is a significant addition to their model. Participants in our study emphasized that a new partner had been instrumental in allowing them to heal in multiple areas, particularly moving on emotionally and regaining their trust in themselves.

In addition to providing support for previous models of relationship dissolution, our results align well with O’Connor’s and Canevello’s (2019) finding that individuals can find healing and growth following infidelity and subsequent relationship dissolution. The participants in our sample reported significant distress in the early aftermath of the infidelity, which gradually decreased as they progressed in healing. Just as O’Connor and Canevello (2019) found that intrusive rumination led to deliberate rumination and eventual growth, our participants reported that their intense emotions gradually softened as they first coped with them and then processed them. While O’Connor and Canevello (2019) operated from a post-traumatic growth framework, our participants did not describe the infidelity as traumatic. Rather, they reported that it was a difficult, painful experience that brought learning and growth. This is consistent with other research suggesting that breaking up in emerging adulthood may be viewed as normal rather than traumatic (Norona, Olmstead, et al., 2017; Norona, Roberson, et al., 2017; Shulman & Connolly, 2013).

More broadly, several aspects of our model are consistent with and expand on Lazarus’ and Folkman’s (1984) stress-coping theory. In particular, our results support the importance of engaging in multiple forms of coping to be able to successfully adapt to and grow from adversity (Folkman, 2010). In the initial aftermath stage of our model, participants reported experiencing intense emotions and not knowing how to deal with them. This is consistent with an appraisal of the infidelity and relationship dissolution as stressful, requiring engaging in coping strategies. In the learning to heal stage, they distanced themselves from their former partners—a form of problem-focused coping—and engaged in negative and positive emotion-focused coping strategies. In the evolving healing stage, participants engaged in meaning-focused coping, such as identifying ways in which they were better as a result of healing from the infidelity. Throughout the healing process, our participants engaged in interpersonal coping with family, friends, therapists, or new partners. Our results show the broad utility of Lazarus’ and Folkman’s (1984) theory, while also suggesting a potential progression of coping strategies for individuals healing from infidelity and relationship dissolution.

Clinical implications

We propose that effective therapeutic intervention with emerging adults who have experienced infidelity and consequent relationship breakup begins with holistic assessment of clients’ emotional, relational, and personal healing dimensions, as well as assessment of supportive relationships that may serve as resources. Within this overarching framework, our findings suggest that clients may have different needs based on how much time has passed since the infidelity. We recommend that clinicians collaboratively work with clients throughout treatment to ensure that therapy is relevant to their needs.

For clients who are relatively close to the relationship breakup, our model supports the importance of making space for healing and focusing on self as early interventions. Additionally, in light of the negative coping behaviors our participants reported during this early phase, we recommend that clinicians assess for risky behaviors and provide psychoeducation about more effective forms of emotional regulation and coping.

Our model also offers guidance for clients who are further removed from the infidelity, suggesting that nurturing relationships, making meaning, and processing emotions may be effective avenues of clinical intervention. Our model suggests that in cases of dissolution and infidelity, clinical interventions focused on humanizing the former partner may be an effective route toward diminishing negative emotions, along with those geared toward facilitating forgiveness.

Limitations and future research

Our results are based on in-depth analysis of rich data. However, there are several limitations to our study that must be taken into consideration. First, the individuals in our sample had a wide array of relationships in terms of duration and type of infidelity experienced. Additionally, we did not collect detailed information on the specific infidelity behaviors our participants had experienced, their socioeconomic status, or the presence of any disabilities. Our use of grounded theory methodology may have led us to overemphasize commonalities in their diverse experiences, potentially neglecting nuances and differences. We invite future research that specifically attends to these potential sources of variation in the process of healing. Second, due to the stigma associated with infidelity, there is the possibility that our participants’ responses were influenced by social desirability (Rollie & Duck, 2006) or faulty memory. Third, our sample consisted entirely of educated emerging adults, with a majority of them being heterosexual females. As a result, we were not able to fully explore differences or nuances in healing for male emerging adults, those who identify as LGBTQIA, or those who are less educated. We caution clinicians against uniformly applying the results of our study with clients. Instead, we encourage clinicians to collaborate with their clients in exploring ways in which the dimensions and processes of healing discussed in our study may or may not apply to them.

Despite these limitations, our study meaningfully contributes to understanding the process of healing from infidelity following relationship dissolution. We call for further research examining the process of healing from infidelity in other developmental stages and research that explores nuances in the healing process based on contextual factors. In particular, we encourage research exploring multiple pathways of healing, such as for those who do not enter a new romantic relationship or those who lack supportive relationships. Future longitudinal research should examine the extent to which significant healing (or continued struggling) in one dimension impacts the other dimensions and the progression of healing. Additionally, future research should also examine whether these dimensions are salient for individuals who stay with their partners following infidelity and nuances and differences between their healing processes. By understanding both commonalities and differences in healing, clinicians will be better equipped to help their clients within their unique contexts.

Conclusion

At the outset of this project, our hope was to learn about the experience of healing from infidelity and relationship dissolution for emerging adults with the intention to co-construct a theory to inform effective treatment and future research. We are grateful for our participants’ willingness to share their experiences of healing, which helped us distill their healing process into four progressive stages along three interrelated dimensions. We hope these findings and this framework will help facilitate better understanding, treatment, and healing from this common and often profoundly challenging experience.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for our participants who graciously and courageously shared their experiences with us.

Authors’ note

This research was presented at the 2020 Annual Conference of the National Council on Family Relations.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by a grant from the Texas Tech Center for Family Systems Research and Intervention.

Open research statement

As part of IARR’s encouragement of open research practices, the author(s) have provided the following information: This research was not pre-registered. The data used in the research are not available. The materials used in the research are available. The materials can be obtained by emailing: Stephen.fife@ttu.edu.

ORCID iDs

Stephen T. Fife

Jacob D. Gossner

References

Allen

E. S.

Atkins

D. C.

(2012). The association of divorce and extramarital sex in a representative US Sample. Journal of Family Issues, 33(11), 1477–1493. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X12439692.

Arnett

J. J.

(2014). Emerging adulthood: The winding road from the late teens through the twenties (2nd ed). Oxford University Press.

Barutçu Yıldırım

Demir

(2015). Breakup adjustment in young adulthood. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93(1), 38–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2015.00179.x.

Baucom

D. H.

Snyder

D. K.

Gordon

K. C.

(2011). Helping couples get past the affair: A clinician’s guide. Guilford Press.

Bird

M. H.

Butler

M. H.

Fife

S. T.

(2007). The process of couple healing following infidelity: A qualitative study. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 6(4), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1300/J398v06n04_01.

Braithwaite

S. R.

Lambert

N. M.

Fincham

F. D.

Pasley

(2010). Does college-based relationship education decrease extradyadic involvement in relationships? Journal of Family Psychology, 24(6), 740–745. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021759.

Bravo

Connolly

McIsaac

(2017). Why did it end? Breakup reasons of youth of different gender, dating stages, and ages. Emerging Adulthood, 5(4), 230–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696817700261.

Butler

M. H.

Gossner

J. D.

Fife

S. T.

(2021). Partners taking turns leaning in and leaning out: Trusting in the healing arc of attachment dynamics following betrayal. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2021.1926388.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis (2nd ed.). Sage.

10.

Fife

S. T.

Weeks

G. R.

Gambescia

(2008). Treating infidelity: An integrative approach. The Family Journal: Counseling & Therapy for Couples and Families, 16(4), 316–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480708323205.

11.

Fife

S. T.

Weeks

G. R.

Stellberg

F. J.

(2013). Facilitating forgiveness in the treatment of infidelity: An interpersonal model. Journal of Family Therapy, 35(4), 343–367. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6427.2011.00561.x.

12.

Folkman

(Ed.). (2010) The Oxford handbook of stress, health, and coping. Oxford University Press.

13.

Hebert

Popadiuk

(2008). University students’ experiences of nonmarital breakups: A grounded theory. Journal of College Student Development, 49(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2008.0008.

14.

Heintzelman

Murdock

N. L.

Krycak

R. C.

Seay

(2014). Recovery from infidelity: Differentiation of self, trauma, forgiveness, and posttraumatic growth among couples in continuing relationships. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000016.

15.

Kansky

Allen

J.P.

(2018). Long-term risks and possible benefits associated with late adolescent romantic relationship quality. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 47, 1531-1544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-018-0813-x.

16.

Laaser

Putney

H. L.

Bundick

Delmonico

D. L.

Griffin

E. J.

(2017). Posttraumatic growth in relationally betrayed women. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 43(3), 435–447. https://doi/10.1111/jmft.12211.

17.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer.

18.

Morris

C. E.

Reiber

(2011). Frequency, intensity, and expression of post-relationship grief. EvoS Journal: The Journal of the Evolutionary Studies Consortium, 3(1), 1–11.

19.

Norona

J. C.

Olmstead

S. B.

Welsh

D. P.

(2017a). Breaking up in emerging adulthood: A developmental perspective of relationship dissolution. Emerging Adulthood, 5(2), 116–127. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696816658585.

20.

Norona

J. C.

Roberson

P. N. E.

Welsh

D. P.

(2017b). “I learned things that make me happy, things that bring me down”: Lessons from romantic relationships in adolescence and emerging adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Research, 32(2), 155–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558415605166.

21.

O’Connor

Canevello

(2019). Recovery and moving on after breakups caused by infidelity. Journal of Loss and Trauma, 24(7), 636–649. https://doi.org/10.1080/15325024.2019.1603005.

22.

O’Sullivan

L. F.

Hughes

Talbot

Fuller

(2019). Plenty of fish in the ocean: How do traits reflecting resiliency moderate adjustment after experiencing a romantic breakup in emerging adulthood? Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 949–962. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-00985-5.

23.

Rhoades

G. K.

Kamp Dush

C. M.

Atkins

D. C.

Stanley

S. M.

Markman

H. J.

(2011). Breaking up is hard to do: The impact of unmarried relationship dissolution on mental health and life satisfaction. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(3), 366–374. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023627.

24.

Roberson

P. N. E.

Norona

J. C.

Fish

J. N.

Olmstead

S. B.

Fincham

(2017). Do differences matter? A typology of emerging adult romantic relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 34(3), 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407516661589.

25.

Rollie

S. S.

Duck

(2006). Divorce and dissolution of romantic relationships: Stage models and their limitations. In Fine

M. A.

Harvey

J. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of divorce and relationship dissolution (pp. 223–240). Psychology Press.

26.

Roos

L. G.

O’Connor

Canevello

Bennett

J. M.

(2019). Post‐traumatic stress and psychological health following infidelity in unmarried young adults. Stress and Health: Journal of the International Society for the Investigation of Stress, 35(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2880.

27.

Saldana

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed.). Sage.

28.

Sbarra

D. A.

Emery

R. E.

(2005). The emotional sequelae of nonmarital relationship dissolution: Analysis of change and intraindividual variability over time. Personal Relationships, 12(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1350-4126.2005.00112.x.

29.

Sbarra

D. A.

Ferrer

(2006). The structure and process of emotional experience following nonmarital relationship dissolution: Dynamic factor analyses of love, anger, and sadness. Emotion, 6(2), 224–238. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.6.2.224.

30.

Shrout

M. R.

Weigel

D. J.

(2018). Infidelity’s aftermath: Appraisals, mental health, and health-compromising behaviors following a partner’s infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35(8), 1067–1091. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407517704091.

31.

Shulman

Connolly

(2013). The challenge of romantic relationships in emerging adulthood: Reconceptualization of the field. Emerging Adulthood, 1(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167696812467330.

32.

Spielmann

S. S.

MacDonald

Wilson

A. E.

(2009). On the rebound: Focusing on someone new helps anxiously attached individuals let go of ex-partners. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(10), 1382–1394. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209341580.

33.

Vail-Smith

Whetstone

L. M.

Knox

(2010, Jan–Feb). The illusion of safety in “monogamous” undergraduate relationships. American Journal of Health Behavior, 34(1), 12–20. https://doi.org/10.5993/ajhb.34.1.2

34.

Warach

Josephs

(2019). The aftershocks of infidelity: A review of infidelity-based attachment trauma. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 5(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2019.1577961.

35.

Weeks

G. R.

Fife

S. T.

(2014). Couples in treatment: Techniques and approaches for effective practice (3rd ed.). Routledge.

36.

Wohl

M. J. A.

McGrath

A. L.

(2007). The perception of time heals all wounds: Temporal distance affects willingness to forgive following an interpersonal transgression. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(7), 1023–1035. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207301021.