Couple healing from infidelity: A grounded theory study

Abstract

Infidelity is a common experience in committed relationships that can lead to significant distress for both partners. While many couples end their relationship following infidelity, a significant portion choose to stay together and attempt reconciliation. In our study, we employed constructivist grounded theory to study the process of healing from infidelity for couples who stay together. Our sample consisted of 16 heterosexual couples who experienced sexual infidelity, chose to stay together, and self-identified as having experienced meaningful healing. Couples had an average age of 27 (range = 19– 46), approximate mean length of relationship at infidelity of 3 years (median = 2 years), and approximate mean time since infidelity of 50 months (median = 24 months). We organize our results into a process model of healing that includes four stages: the revelation of the infidelity, initial reactions, stabilizing the relationship, and revitalizing the relationship. The grounded theory suggests there is a developmental progression of healing as couples jointly work to re-establish their relationship. This process includes assessing the damage, affirming commitment, establishing accountability, seeking reconnection, communicating deeply, re-establishing trust, and moving from initial to deeper forgiveness. Our results also suggest that couples’ shared history, sociocultural factors, and receipt of formal and informal support shaped how they experienced the infidelity and engaged in healing. We discuss key clinical implications of the grounded theory, especially related to the role therapy can play in facilitating healing, the importance of open communication and processing emotions, deepening forgiveness, and the reciprocal process of restoring trust.

Keywords

Infidelity affair healing couples therapy psychotherapy grounded theory

Introduction

Infidelity is a violation of sexual, physical, and/or emotional boundaries that can negatively impact the health of both non-straying and straying partners (Bird et al., 2007; Fife et al., 2008; Warach & Josephs, 2021). While many couples who experience infidelity separate or divorce (Allen & Atkins, 2012), others choose to remain in the relationship and attempt reconciliation. Although multiple clinical models map and guide healing following infidelity, most are based on informal anecdotal evidence or rely on samples that do not include both partners’ perspectives on the healing process. Despite being a relational issue, very little research explores the process of couple healing from a dyadic perspective. This research is crucial to developing a holistic understanding of the process of healing for couples who experience infidelity. In the present study, we sought to develop a theory of couple healing from infidelity by analyzing semi-structured interviews with 16 heterosexual couples who experienced infidelity in their current relationship and chose to stay together.

Literature review

Infidelity prevalence and consequences

Infidelity behaviors can be divided into two general categories: sexual infidelity, which can include sexual intercourse, kissing, or caressing (Braithwaite et al., 2010), and emotional infidelity, which can include being in love with someone else, being more dedicated to someone else, or sharing intimate details of life with someone other than one’s partner (Guitar et al., 2017). Due to these differing definitions, prevalence estimates have a wide range. Research suggests that sexual infidelity is a common phenomenon in committed relationships, with the General Social Survey of married U.S. adults suggesting a lifetime prevalence of approximately 21.2% for men and 13.4% for women (Labrecque & Whisman, 2017). Of couples who report infidelity, separation and divorce rates range from 24% to 53% (Allen & Atkins, 2012).

Despite its relatively high prevalence, infidelity is correlated with multiple negative outcomes for both partners. For non-straying partners, Warach and Josephs (2021) identified emotional, cognitive, behavioral, and physical consequences, including feelings of betrayal, diminished feelings of worth, alterations in core beliefs, and maladaptive coping strategies. Some research suggests that non-straying partners can experience infidelity as a source of interpersonal trauma, leading them to develop symptoms akin to post-traumatic stress disorder (Laaser et al., 2017). Straying partners also report negative outcomes, although this is less studied.

Therapeutic intervention

Limited research has explored the effectiveness of therapy with couples or individuals who have experienced infidelity. Atkins et al. (2010) compared couples who have (n = 145) and have not (n = 385) experienced infidelity and found that couples who experienced infidelity reported significantly higher relationship distress and depression prior to treatment; however, 1 year after beginning therapy, these couples were not statistically distinguishable. To explore whether couples therapy is effective long term, Marin et al. (2014) examined divorce and relationship satisfaction 5 years after beginning couples therapy for 19 couples who reported infidelity compared to 115 couples who did not. They found that couples who reported infidelity were significantly more likely to be divorced at 5 years follow-up. However, those couples who were still together at 5 years follow-up reported statistically indistinguishable relationship stability and relationship satisfaction, regardless of infidelity status. These studies suggest couples therapy is effective in reducing relationship distress and increasing relationship satisfaction and stability following infidelity.

Models of healing from infidelity

Over the previous two decades, models of healing from infidelity have proliferated. The majority are clinically based models that use informal samples, anecdotal evidence, or application of general couple therapy models to describe the process of healing and treatment for couples who seek therapeutic intervention (e.g., Butler et al., 2022; Fife et al., 2008; Johnson, 2005). Other authors have used formal samples — of admittedly small size — to explore healing from the perspective of individuals (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Gossner et al., 2022; Olson et al., 2002) or couples (Bird et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2021a; Mitchell et al., 2021b) who have experienced infidelity. While a full synthesis of all these articles is beyond the scope of this paper, we highlight a general progression of healing suggested by the literature.

Initial reactivity

There is consensus that in the aftermath of infidelity, partners experience intense pain, anger, a sense of betrayal, and loss of trust (Mitchell et al., 2021b; Fife et al., 2022; Olson et al., 2002). For many couples, there is uncertainty about whether to remain in the relationship and how to rebuild if they choose to do so (Butler et al., 2022). Some models emphasize the importance of non-straying partners gaining a full enough understanding of the details of the infidelity to gain clarity regarding whether they want to remain in the relationship (Baucom et al., 2017). While the emphasis varies across models, cognitive understanding of the causes and consequences of the infidelity (Baucom et al., 2017) and managing difficult emotions (Fife et al., 2008; Olson et al., 2002) are both considered important elements of healing.

Attempting reconciliation

Multiple authors suggest that there is a period of time between the initial reaction to the infidelity and processing the infidelity where reactivity gives way to a tentative shared commitment to repairing the relationship (Butler et al., 2022; Fife et al., 2008). It is often during this period when couples seek therapy (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Bird et al., 2007; Fife et al., 2008). Straying partners may apologize for the infidelity and express remorse for their actions, whereas non-straying partners may express their intent to forgive (Fife et al., 2013; Mitchell et al., 2021a).

Olson et al. (2002) refer to this period as a moratorium, a period of intentional distancing from the details and pain of the infidelity, which may involve temporary separation; alternatively, couples who do not separate may experience Butler et al., 2022 containment dynamic, where the non-straying partner temporarily contains their pain and anger to allow the relationship to return to relative stability. This quietude comes at a significant cost for non-straying partners, and therefore couples must transition to more open processing for healing to deepen. Some models do not endorse this period of relative calm (e.g., Baucom et al., 2017).

Processing the infidelity

Nearly all models of healing address the importance of overtly processing the infidelity, including open conversations about the individual and relational impact of the infidelity, systemic patterns that led up to the infidelity, and individual- and couple-level vulnerabilities that facilitated the infidelity (Baucom et al., 2017; Fife et al., 2008; Weeks & Fife, 2009). This processing is highly emotionally charged and may lead to conflict, separation, or divorce. This may be particularly likely in couples when either partner interpreted the emotional calm of containment (Butler et al., 2022) or moratorium (Olson et al., 2002) as meaning they were ‘past’ or ‘over’ the infidelity. Nevertheless, this processing is essential in order to resolve the infidelity in a way that will not lead to enduring imbalance (Butler et al., 2022).

Common markers in the process of healing are trust, forgiveness, and meaning-making. The straying partner plays a crucial role in restoring trust through trustworthy actions (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Butler et al., 2022; Fife et al., 2013; Olson et al., 2002). Several authors who directly focus on forgiveness assert that full forgiveness of the infidelity must be grounded in evidence of change on the part of the straying partner (Baucom et al., 2017; Butler et al., 2022; Fife et al., 2008; Mitchell et al., 2021). Couples may make meaning out of their experience as they identify ways in which they have grown and become closer together (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Fife et al., 2008; Gossner et al., 2022; Olson et al., 2002). Over time, many couples are able to cultivate healing and a stronger relationship; others may continue to struggle with the aftereffects of infidelity (Baucom et al., 2017; Gossner et al., 2022).

Purpose of present study

Despite the high prevalence of infidelity, the significant individual and relationship distress it precipitates, and the reality that many couples choose to remain together and attempt reconciliation, little research has explored couples’ perspectives on their own healing process. Those studies that have included couples (e.g., Bird et al., 2007; Mitchell et al., 2021b; Mitchell et al., 2021a) have used small samples and recruited them through therapists, which may exaggerate the role of therapy in healing. The purpose of the present study is to address this gap in the literature and to develop a model of the process of healing from infidelity for couples who choose to stay together. The primary research question guiding the study was, “What is the process of healing from infidelity for couples who choose to stay together?” The secondary research question was, “What role does therapy play in facilitating healing following infidelity?”

Methods

We used constructivist grounded theory (Charmaz, 2014) methodology, which is designed to enable researchers to develop an understanding of a given process that is firmly based, or “grounded,” in the data. This methodology was ideal for the present study because it allowed us to co-construct a model of healing from infidelity for couples that incorporated both partners’ perspectives, while also acknowledging and reflexively considering our role in study design, implementation, and analysis. To facilitate our analysis, we used a research team throughout the process in order to explore multiple interpretations of the data, check biases, and prevent premature conclusions (Cornish et al., 2014).

Data collection

Following approval by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of a university in the southwestern United States, we conducted 45- to 60-minute semi-structured interviews with 16 heterosexual couples (n = 32) who had experienced infidelity in their current romantic relationship and chose to stay together. Partners were interviewed together. The interviews began with demographic questions and moved to more open-ended questions, such as “What were some significant moments in your healing process?” Topics covered included aspects of healing, processing emotions, trust, forgiveness, therapy/counseling, and setbacks to healing (see Supplemental File for the semi-structured interview guide). The tone of participants’ responses was generally positive, with some suggesting the healing process was ongoing. The semi-structured format allowed the interviewer to ask follow-up questions as needed to better understand participants’ experiences. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, most interviews were conducted over videoconferencing software, although some were conducted in person. The audio from each interview was recorded, transcribed verbatim, and checked against the recording for accuracy by a different team member.

Participants

We used purposive sampling to collect a sample that fit the following inclusion criteria: being in a committed romantic relationship, having experienced infidelity from one or both partners in that relationship, having chosen to stay together, and self-identifying as experiencing some degree of healing from the infidelity. Following team discussion, we excluded two couples from our sample who reported pornography use as the only infidelity behavior. We recruited most participants via word of mouth and the university broadcasting service with the subject line, “Study on the Process of Healing from Infidelity.” Two couples were recruited through therapists. In line with constructivist grounded theory, we attempted to balance participant homogeneity, allowing comparison across participants, and heterogeneity, allowing for exploration of differences. The diversity of our sample allowed us to explore meaningful nuances in the healing process across couples while also highlighting core similarities. We continued sampling until we reached theoretical saturation.

Our final sample consisted of 16 heterosexual couples (see Table 1). At the time of the interview, couples had been together for an average of 7.6 years (median 5.33 years) with elapsed time since discovering the infidelity ranging from 2 months to 26 years (median 24 months). Of note, the sample was relatively young (mean age for women = 26.3, men = 28.1) and religious (56.1% Christian), with 56.3% of couples married. All 16 couples reported the infidelity was sexual, with six couples reporting that the infidelity was also emotional. The straying partner was male for 10 couples, female for three couples, and both partners (male partner as the primary straying partner) for three couples. 11 of the couples (68.8%) attended couples therapy, and 11 participants (34.4%) sought individual therapy.

Table 1.

Sample demographics.

Variable	Mean (SD) or count (%)
Age (years)
Men	28.1 (SD = 7.7)
Women	26.3 (SD = 6.1)
Ethnicity
White	11 (34.4%)
Hispanic/Latinx	5 (15.6%)
African American	5 (15.6%)
Other	4 (12.5%)
Religious affiliation
Christian	18 (56.3%)
None	7 (21.9%)
Hindu	1 (3.1%)
Marital status
Married	9 couples (56.3%)
Together	7 couples (43.7%)
Time since infidelity (months)	50 (SD = 6.1)
Therapy
Couples therapy	11 couples (68.8%)
Individual therapy	11 individuals (34.4%)

Note. Not all participants responded to all demographic questions, so the totals do not equal the full sample of 32 participants.

Data analysis

We used the data analysis procedures outlined by Charmaz (2014), including open, focused, and theoretical coding. We began data analysis following the transcription of the first interview and engaged in constant comparison and theoretical sampling throughout the analysis, such that subsequent interviews were informed by earlier interviews and our ongoing analysis. As a research team, we determined alterations to interview questions to deepen and challenge our emerging analysis. In the open coding stage, we used in vivo codes and gerunds to capture actions that participants described. Examples of early codes included “being honest” and “expressing compassion.” To facilitate a variety of perspectives on the data, at least two team members independently coded each interview. For the first several interviews, all members of the team analyzed the interviews, and we discussed our findings in full team meetings; following these initial interviews, dyads of the research team coded interviews and met separately to discuss prominent codes. They then presented their findings to the full research team for discussion, questions, and feedback.

To facilitate the transition to focused coding, we created a codebook with a comprehensive list of inductively derived codes and tentative working categories that housed these codes. We then copied quotes from each interview into the codebook and analyzed what each quote clarified about the meaning or substance of the code and how this quote compared with similar quotes from other participants (Saldana, 2016). Each member of the research team created a descriptive summary (Corbin & Strauss, 2015) of the process of healing and presented this summary in their dyad. Each team member then developed an initial theory of the process of healing from infidelity and presented it to the full research team for critique and evaluation. As a research team, we collaboratively revised the codebook and constructed a provisional model of healing from infidelity that captured the salient elements from these various summaries.

During the theorizing process, we engaged in constant comparison by returning to the data to ensure that every component of our model was well represented in the sample. After determining that some aspects of the provisional theory required further analysis, we reanalyzed each segment from the interviews that referenced these components and created analytic memos summarizing our analysis. Following this theorizing, the research team reviewed the theory and offered suggestions for improvement or clarification. The result is a parsimonious grounded theory of the process of healing from infidelity for couples who choose to stay together.

Trustworthiness and reflexivity

To promote trustworthiness, we used a diverse research team and engaged in structured and unstructured reflexivity (Hall et al., 2005). In order to integrate multiple perspectives, we assembled a research team that varied in terms of gender (three women and three men), age (25–50), academic status (three master’s students, two doctoral students, and one associate professor) and previous personal, research, and clinical experience with infidelity (Cornish et al., 2014). We divided responsibilities such that three team members conducted interviews, five team members transcribed interviews, and all team members coded interviews. We created a dynamic team structure by combining individual, dyadic, and full team analysis, with dyads that shifted throughout the project (Hall et al., 2005). Team members engaged in reflexive memoing after conducting, transcribing, checking, and coding interviews. During team meetings, we also utilized structured reflexivity activities to examine previous experiences with infidelity and assumptions about healing. We also discussed power differentials and the voice of each team member. This led us to adjust the structure of the research team to better allow each team member to present their perspective, leading to a more comprehensive and rich analysis.

Transparency and openness

This study was not preregistered. We report how we determined sample size and all data exclusions, and we follow JARS. The data used for this study are not available.

Results

We organize our findings into four stages: the revelation, either discovery or disclosure of the infidelity; initial responses, which includes assessing the damage from infidelity and affirming commitment to the relationship; stabilizing the relationship, which includes seeking reconnection, establishing accountability, and initial forgiveness; and revitalizing the relationship, which includes communicating deeply, deepening forgiveness, rebuilding trust, and creating shared meaning. We also discuss contextual factors, including couples’ shared history, sociocultural context, and formal and informal support. We illustrate the process of healing in Figure 1, with couples moving forward through each stage. We represent the relationship between accountability and trust, reconnecting and communicating deeply, and initial and deepening forgiveness using a gradient. The couples’ shared history and sociocultural context frame the entire healing process, with professional and informal support acting as scaffolding. We acknowledge that healing is not uniform and that there are limitations to presenting a stage-based model. Nevertheless, our model tracks the general progression of healing described by our participants and is useful in highlighting commonalities in healing.

Figure 1.

Couple healing from infidelity.

The revelation: Discovery or disclosure

We anchor the beginning of the healing process to the discovery or disclosure of the infidelity. By discovery, we mean that the non-straying partner found out about the infidelity without the straying partner disclosing it. By disclosing, we mean that the straying partner disclosed at least part of the infidelity prior to the non-straying partner discovering evidence of it. For three couples, the straying partner disclosed the infidelity; for 13 couples, the non-straying partner discovered the infidelity.

When non-straying partners discovered the infidelity, they reported feeling multiple extreme emotions, including betrayal, anger, sadness, and distrust. One non-straying partner reported, “[Finding out] is really like getting hit by a train. Like you can’t even function. You can’t move, you can’t think, you can’t eat, you can’t even process anything.” For straying partners, discovery of their infidelity led to intense feelings of shame and regret. One straying partner explained, “You feel like, you can’t be forgiven, so why should I even try, why should I invest more time. Let’s just try to figure out the breakup.”

The three straying partners who disclosed the infidelity did so out of a desire to reconcile and repair the relationship. One straying partner explained that he had confessed because “I wanted to stay with [my partner].” While non-straying partners who experienced a disclosure also reported feeling anger, hurt, and loss, their responses suggested that the impact of infidelity was softened to some degree by their partners’ truthful admission of their actions and sincere apologies. One non-straying partner whose partner disclosed the infidelity explained, “I had been really angry before [he disclosed], and I think it was because the energy of the dishonesty. . . So then when there was truth and openness, I didn’t have hurt and anger as much.”

Initial responses

Assessing the damage

Once the infidelity was discovered or disclosed, couples reported deliberately discussing the extent, duration, and severity of the infidelity and the reasons why it occurred. These initial conversations were often volatile; nevertheless, multiple couples reported that these early conversations were essential to healing. One straying partner who initially shut down after his partner discovered his infidelity explained, “As soon as you’re opening the door to communication and actually talking to each other. . . That’s probably the mark of when the healing started.” Through these conversations, couples created an initial assessment of the impact of the infidelity. Some couples experienced the infidelity as a “nuclear bomb” that destroyed their earlier relationship. Other couples experienced the infidelity as “a stain” that they could choose whether or not to focus on, and one couple experienced it as something “not that serious.”

Affirming commitment

Concurrently with their assessment of the damage caused by the infidelity, participants determined the extent to which they were committed to the relationship. Some couples reported that they immediately committed to repairing the relationship following the revelation. One non-straying partner explained, “I don’t think either one of us, after everything came out, felt like, ‘Well now we gotta decide if we’re going to stay with it.’” Instead, he emphasized, “It was always just like, ‘Well we’ve been through hard stuff before, so this is going to be awful, but we’re going to figure this out.’”

In contrast, many couples reflected that one (most commonly the non-straying partner) or both partners initially questioned the viability of the relationship. One non-straying partner explained that although she had previously believed she would “leave in a heartbeat,” in actuality she responded by, “You take time, and you process, and you don’t make any decisions immediately. And you realize, ‘Okay, is this something that you want to fight for? Is it worth fighting for?’” A few couples reported that the more committed partner had tried to encourage the other partner to commit, like one non-straying partner who told her partner, “I still want to work on our marriage. This is something we can get through.”

Affirming their commitment gave couples a chance to stabilize and revitalize the relationship. One straying partner reflected, “Knowing that [my partner] was going to stay there and work it out with me. . . That’s made life easier in a lot of ways and the healing process easier.” Nevertheless, several participants reported that, after initially committing, they had wondered whether to stay when their partners showed limited efforts to change. For example, one straying partner questioned the relationship after her partner failed to follow-through on his financial and exercise goals. She reported wondering, “Do we need to be together? Did we make the right decision at the altar?” In contrast, as her partner started to keep these commitments, she reported, “That’s helped a lot to [have] that confidence in us.”

Stabilizing the relationship

Seeking reconnection

In establishing stability after infidelity, participants intentionally sought to reconnect to strengthen their love for, and liking of, each other. One non-straying partner explained, “[Even after infidelity], I would be hurt, but I still want to hang out with her.” Another reflected, “Our friendship is a better thermometer for our marital health than any sort of romance or sexual stuff.” While each couple reconnected in their own way, all of them referenced the importance of shared time together. One straying partner reported that as a couple they did similar activities to when they were courting. The non-straying partner in this couple explained, “It was really important for us to be like, ‘Look, we can still have fun.’ The circumstances of life aren’t always fun right now, but that doesn’t mean that the love isn’t there.”

Reconnecting required prioritizing the relationship over other commitments. One couple explained, “We kind of went back down to ground zero by cutting a lot of stuff down and doing the things that were helpful and beneficial to us as a couple and for our family.” Another non-straying partner explained, “We focused pretty immediately on fostering intimacy and building trust and being close again.” He then elaborated, “Pretty immediately [I] was like, ‘Nope, I don’t want to feel any distance, this is going to be hard enough as it is, I don’t want to feel like we’re separating from each other for any reason.’” As several participants made clear, partners seeking connection with each other helped couples move forward from the infidelity as a solid unit, supported by their individual pursuit of healing.

Establishing accountability

Nearly every couple reported that a primary effect of the infidelity was a loss of trust in the relationship. As a first step towards restoring trust, multiple couples established accountability practices by which the non-straying partner could have confidence that no further infidelity behaviors would occur. Examples of these accountability practices were providing electronic verification of location or sharing phone records. One non-straying partner explained, “We had to decide on some very decisive and specific actions, . . . Like me being able to ask questions or look at phones.” For some couples, the straying partner proactively provided this information prior to the non-straying partner requesting it. When this occurred, this seemed to facilitate greater increases in trust. One non-straying partner explained, “[My partner] would tell me, ‘Hey, I haven’t been talking to this person’ or ‘Hey, here is what I’m doing, I’ll be here.’. . . He took the initiative to do it, and. . . Little by little that is helping me trust again.”

As trust began to develop, most couples indicated that these accountability practices became less essential. Several couples emphasized that the decision to end accountability practices was made by the non-straying partner once they felt ready. After months of consistent support and trustworthy behavior from her partner, one non-straying partner reported telling him, “I think we’re done with the check-ins. It’s almost like we’re past that point.” On the other hand, some non-straying partners explained that they had stopped accountability practices because they had required too much effort. One participant explained, “After these things happened, then I got a little more like, ‘Oh my God, where are you, what are you doing, who are you with?’ But then, it didn’t last long because it was taxing for me.” Her partner then responded, “And also because I was open to tell you, ‘I’m doing this, I’m doing this.’”

Initial forgiveness

Seven of the non-straying partners reported communicating forgiveness to their partners soon after the revelation of the infidelity. Participants described this initial forgiving as evidence of their willingness to put the past behind them and attempt to reconcile with their partners. Multiple participants connected their willingness to forgive with their religious faith. One non-straying partner explained, “That’s always been a value of the Christian faith, of being able to forgive. And I think I’m kind of a sucker for a redemption story.” In this regard, some participants connected their forgiveness with God rather than with their partner’s reparative efforts. One non-straying partner explained, “Forgiveness is something I did in my heart between me and myself and God. I don’t know if [straying partner] necessarily did anything with that.”

Some non-straying partners reported that their willingness to forgive helped their partners to recommit to the relationship. One non-straying partner explained, “Showing him that I really was going to work on forgiveness — not forgetting, but forgiveness — I think was a big step for him [in choosing to attempt reconciliation].” A straying partner reported that her healing was facilitated by her partner’s forgiveness because, “You felt right from the beginning that you wanted to forgive me. And parts of me felt forgiven, even from the get-go.”

At the same time, while non-straying partners’ initial forgiveness helped the relationship to continue, several non-straying partners emphasized that they were still hurt by and resentful of the infidelity. One participant explained, “I forgave him, but I wasn’t holding up my end of the bargain,” and then elaborated, “I thought I was allowed to be like, ‘I forgive you, but you figure it all out.’” This participant later learned that she “needed to do some soul searching and fix [herself]” to move forward in her personal healing and for relationship healing to progress.

Revitalizing the relationship

Communicating deeply

As couples moved forward in healing, they began to communicate at deeper levels and with greater honesty. For non-straying partners, communicating deeply primarily involved processing emotions around the infidelity. One non-straying partner explained, “Something that really helped me was openly sharing and being really honest about my feelings and what happened.” Referencing triggering thoughts, another non-straying partner reported, “What I do to get past [the infidelity] again, when it pops up again, is I have to talk to [my partner] about it.” Straying partners also benefitted from this more open sharing, although they referenced it less commonly. One straying partner explained, “She draws me out in a way that exposes my true feelings in my heart. It’s not just a topical cream answer, it’s the medicine that gets deep down and starts the healing process and continues the healing process.”

For straying partners, communicating deeply was primarily about communicating their needs and desires in the relationship. One straying partner who attributed the infidelity to undisclosed relationship dissatisfaction reported, “I thought I was doing something moral and good by not complaining or not doing XYZ. But in the end, it was kind of a more cowardly approach. . . So now I realize the braver I am, the more I’m going to heal.” Sharing her real feelings and needs helped her have confidence in herself and in the relationship. Another straying partner explained, “[As we worked to heal,] we were talking all the time. . . We were much more real, I feel, than we ever were before [the infidelity].”

Deepening forgiveness

Every couple emphasized the importance of the non-straying partners’ forgiveness in healing the relationship. Based on our participants’ responses, we understand deep forgiveness as an intentional, continual choice to extend a second chance to straying partners, rather than defining them by the infidelity. One non-straying partner described forgiveness as an “intentional choice of word, thought, and action, knowing the context of what happened, but acting in accordance with what you hope for the future instead of what happened in the past.”

Non-straying partners’ forgiveness not only allowed the relationship to continue but also helped non-straying partners to gradually release resentment and straying partners to move on from their previous actions. One non-straying partner explained, “I knew I had to forgive in order to not be angry. And I knew it was going to help me in the end; regardless of how our relationship works out, I wanted to be a better person through it.”

As straying partners accepted non-straying partners’ forgiveness and forgave themselves, they moved away from their past towards a healthier present. For some straying partners, forgiving themselves involved separating their actions from their identity. One straying partner explained, “[The infidelity] happened, and it’s at the forefront; it doesn’t mean that it’s defining.” In our sample, straying partners only focused on forgiving themselves after the non-straying partner had experienced a certain degree of healing. One straying partner explained that at first, he “wouldn’t allow [healing] to be about me at all. It was whatever she needed.” This straying partner only focused on forgiving himself when his partner was “more or less healed.”

Rebuilding trust

Multiple couples identified rebuilding trust as the hardest part of their healing process and the element they were still working on at the time of the interview. While forgiveness was primarily under the influence of the non-straying partner, rebuilding trust was an interactive process between both partners. One non-straying partner emphasized, “Forgiveness was a choice; trust is a process.”

Rebuilding trust required that, in addition to engaging in the accountability practices described earlier, straying partners manifested a changed disposition from defensiveness, blaming, and being closed off to being conciliatory, honest, and open. For some couples, this change of disposition began with the straying partner’s disclosure of the infidelity. One non-straying partner whose partner disclosed the infidelity reported that prior to disclosing, her partner had not been “sensitive to things that were emotionally difficult for me.” In contrast, after disclosing, she reported, “[My partner] expressed compassion, and was willing to avoid certain situations that were triggering for me, or thoughtful about how the situation was for me.” This fundamental, dispositional change in her partner allowed her to feel that she could trust him. For other couples, the straying partner communicated this change of disposition through complete honesty. One non-straying partner explained, “Whenever she finally laid it all out, became completely vulnerable” that was when “I could grow close to her again, and be with her... I don’t have this nagging thought in my head all day like, ‘Why are you still lying to me?’”

Non-straying partners also played a critical role in re-establishing trust in the relationship by choosing how they responded to doubts and insecurity. Trust increased as non-straying partners went to their partners seeking reassurance rather than interrogating them and as straying partners provided evidence of trustworthiness. One non-straying partner explained that he would tell his partner, “I am feeling really insecure, I’m feeling like I’m not trusting in this moment. Can you show me some evidence to help me feel the trust again?” As his partner responded with this evidence, he was able to deepen his trust in her.

Creating shared meaning

In healing, couples also created shared meaning about what the infidelity meant for them individually and relationally. For many couples, shared meaning revolved around growth gained during the process of healing. One non-straying partner described, “Just using these challenges and all this bad to turn into something even better that wouldn’t have been possible without the bad.” Multiple couples reported that healing from infidelity gave them confidence they could resolve future challenges, as well. One straying partner explained, “At least now we understand a lot of what went on and why and how, and what we can do in the future for any, like, anything.”

Creating shared meaning allowed couples to find positive outcomes from healing, despite the difficulty of the process. One non-straying partner described pivotal moments when they reflected together, “This is terrible right now, but on the back end of this we’re going to have a better marriage. . . Because we’re making it through this terrible stuff and not just quitting.” As couples focused on their hopes for the future, they gained strength to persevere in healing.

Contextual factors on couple healing

The 16 couples in our sample reported meaningfully different reactions to and processing of the infidelity, particularly with regards to their appraisal of the infidelity’s severity. Based on their responses, we attribute much of this variation to shared history, sociocultural context, and receipt of formal and informal social support.

Shared history

Couples’ shared history — including friendship, courtship, challenges, successes, and childrearing — influenced how they interpreted and responded to the infidelity. Many couples reported that they had already navigated other serious challenges as a couple prior to the revelation of the infidelity. Some couples directly connected their responses to previous challenges with the way they were responding to the infidelity. One non-straying partner reported that the couple’s successful navigation of his problematic pornography use, 2 years before his partner’s infidelity, had “set up a model of ‘Hey, this is how we handle this kind of thing,‘. . . Especially in the context of our marriage vows.”

Sociocultural context

Couples’ sociocultural context — including age, developmental life stage, relationship duration and status, ethnicity, culture, and religion — influenced their assessment of the infidelity and their subsequent healing. Several couples reported that their healing process was influenced by their developmental life stage. One younger non-straying partner explained, “I kind of chalked up the infidelity to being like, ‘Oh it’s just something that happens in your youth, you know, you’re young and you’re in college and you’re exploring.’” One couple who reported that infidelity was accepted in their culture explained that they had “literally created our own culture for each other” rather than adhering to the typical norms of their culture.

Multiple participants emphasized that religion was a particularly important factor in shaping their understanding of infidelity, their decision to reconcile, and their healing process. One non-straying partner reported that he had decided to commit to reconciling when his father reminded him, “Jesus called us to forgive.” Another non-straying partner explained that early in healing she decided, “I’m going to shut all of [the unsupportive voices] out, and it’s just going to be me and this vertical relationship with the Lord.”

Obtaining professional support

In the process of healing, 11 couples attended couples therapy and 11 participants attended individual therapy. Four couples reported attending five or fewer sessions, while the other seven attended longer. Couples therapy helped couples to communicate productively, provided them tools to reconnect, and facilitated perspective-taking. One straying partner explained, “I don’t know if I would have felt as healed without [counseling], because we did learn better ways to communicate. And I was able to share things and say things.” A non-straying partner explained, “The therapist was so compassionate towards [my partner] and. . . He was really bringing out the stories, like [my partner’s] side of the story that I hadn’t really considered.” She reflected, “That helped me have a lot more compassion.” Participants also described how the habits of reconnecting they established in therapy continued to play an important role in their current relationship. One straying partner explained, “The things that we learned [in therapy]... Like making time for each other and having those special dates... We continued to do, no matter what.”

Eleven participants who attended couples therapy also attended individual therapy; no participants reported attending only individual therapy. Our participants used individual therapy to process their emotions and to improve themselves. One participant explained he benefited from individual therapy by “being able to vent fears and frustrations and anxieties, and kind of come down off of those before communicating those to [my partner].” Other participants emphasized that individual therapy was a way for them to improve themselves in order to benefit the relationship. One non-straying partner reported, “Therapy has helped me kind of work out [my anger about the infidelity] and made me be better. Focusing on [my] problems has helped the relationship as a whole.”

While most couples attended therapy, five couples did not attend therapy. The decision not to attend therapy seemed connected to couples’ sociocultural context and relationship history. Of the five couples who did not attend therapy following the infidelity, only one had been together for more than 1 year. Perhaps for this reason, the couples who did not attend therapy described the infidelity as less impactful than couples who did attend therapy. Additionally, two couples who did not attend therapy cited cultural reasons for this decision (e.g., that therapy was not a commonly used resource in their culture).

Informal social support

Most participants reported reaching out to their support network soon after the infidelity was revealed, including family, friends, or God. One non-straying partner reported, “There were friends that were really supportive and loving.” One straying partner explained that in the aftermath of discovery, one of her friends “dealt with everything when me and [my partner] were going through stuff and was kind of there for me.” These positive interactions supported participants in their efforts to heal their relationship and process their emotions.

At the same time, participants reported that informal supporters were less likely to support the straying partner and sometimes discouraged the non-straying partner from remaining in the relationship. One non-straying partner explained, “Because I was viewed as the victim, . . . I had people that I could go and cry with; whereas he was just shut down, didn’t have anyone to support him in that same way.” To avoid unhelpful interactions with friends or family, some couples did not inform anyone about the infidelity. One non-straying partner explained that by not confiding in others she had avoided “getting outside information or outside people’s opinions. . . I didn’t want that influence over my decision to move forward in the relationship.”

Discussion

The primary question guiding this study was “What is the process of healing from infidelity for couples who choose to stay together?” Based on our participants’ descriptions, we constructed a grounded theory of couple healing from infidelity, which we organized into four stages: the revelation, initial responses, stabilizing the relationship, and revitalizing the relationship. We also examined the influence of couples’ shared history, sociocultural context, and receipt of professional and informal support.

The revelation: Discovery or disclosure

In our model, the first phase of healing was the revelation, which focused on the process by which the infidelity was disclosed or discovered. The results about the method of discovery are unique in that our data come from couples who have engaged in infidelity, compared to other research where participants were only asked to imagine their partner engaging in infidelity (e.g., Gunderson & Ferrari, 2008; Pettijohn & Ndoni, 2013). Consistent with other research, the couples in our sample reported experiencing intense pain, anger, and loss of trust after the infidelity came to light (Baucom et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2001). Expanding on previous research (Afifi et al., 2001), our results indicate that there may be different healing trajectories for couples based on whether the straying partner discloses the infidelity or whether the non-straying partner discovers it. When straying partners disclosed the infidelity, couples reported a less severe reaction to the infidelity and an easier time restoring trust in the relationship. In contrast, the couples where the non-straying partner discovered the infidelity and confronted their partner about it reported a more severe reaction to the infidelity. Additional research is necessary to explore whether the differences we observed are representative of couple healing generally or unique to our sample. Future research may also explore the process of discovery or disclosure and the ways these influence partners’ responses and couples’ healing.

Initial responses

The second phase of healing was couples’ initial responses to the infidelity, which included both assessing the damage and affirming commitment to the relationship. The couples in our sample reported cognitively and emotionally assessing the individual and relationship damage caused by the infidelity and determining whether they believed reconciliation was possible. The belief that reconciliation and healing were possible motivated couples to make the attempt and was critical to pursuing healing. This interactive cognitive and emotional appraisal is similar to what Baucom et al. (2017) identified as occurring at the beginning of healing.

The importance of recommitting to the relationship for relational healing is well supported by other research (Gossner et al., 2022; Olson et al., 2002). While some couples reported never questioning their commitment to the relationship, most couples reported that one or both partners initially questioned the relationship and later committed to reconciliation. In like manner, Butler et al., 2022 suggest that early healing may be characterized by periods of ambivalence about remaining in the relationship for both straying and non-straying partners. In Gossner et al.’s (2022) study of relationship healing following infidelity, couples who reported ambivalence indicated that it was brief, and most couples committed to the relationship within days of discovery. However, similar to Butler et al., 2022, some participants in our study reported questioning their commitment to the relationship later in healing, especially when their partners did not keep their commitments. This underscores the utility of therapists exploring ambivalence throughout the healing process, rather than only after the revelation of infidelity.

Stabilizing the relationship

Following their initial appraisal, the process of healing continued as couples worked to stabilize the relationship by seeking reconnection, establishing accountability, and offering initial forgiveness. In their efforts to heal, couples actively worked to rekindle positive aspects of their relationship and engaged in practices similar to those they did when forming their relationships. Gottman and Gottman’s (2017) research on the importance of building love maps and nurturing fondness and admiration in long-term relationships supports our finding that these practices are useful in recovering from infidelity.

Fueled by a commitment to pursue reconciliation, seven non-straying partners made initial expressions of forgiveness shortly after the revelation. These individuals indicated this signified a willingness to move forward from the infidelity, rather than a statement that they had processed the experience. Other research has similarly found that relationship commitment is predictive of forgiveness (Braithwaite et al., 2011), as is religious belief (Fox & Thomas, 2008). Additional literature emphasizes that forgiveness in response to infidelity is facilitated by empathy, commitment, humility, and apology (Chi et al., 2019; Fife et al., 2013). Future research may explore the individual and relational benefits and costs of early expressions of forgiveness.

Establishing accountability and initial expressions of forgiveness together facilitated the restoration of trust and reconciliation. While previous research identifies forgiveness as increasing the forgivers’ relationship effort (Braithwaite, et al., 2011), we found that expressions of forgiveness helped increase straying partners’ commitment to reconciling and their subsequent effort. Previous literature indicates that couples who engage in consistent forgiveness rituals can reestablish and strengthen trust in the relationship (Barnett & Youngberg, 2004), especially as straying partners take an open and understanding position (Khumas et al., 2020). Our results extend previous models of healing by illustrating how the interplay of accountability and initial forgiveness facilitates restoring trust, deepening forgiveness, and moving forward.

Revitalizing the relationship

As couples continued to heal, they revitalized their relationship by communicating deeply, deepening forgiveness, rebuilding trust, and creating shared meaning. Couples who did and did not attend therapy affirmed the necessity of communicating deeply and honestly, both in processing their experience and in changing relationship dynamics to meet each partner’s needs. Mitchell et al. (2021a) similarly found that openly communicating following infidelity facilitated healing and reconciliation (see also Baucom et al., 2017; Butler et al., 2022; Weeks & Fife, 2009). In addition to the healing influence of open communication for non-straying partners, straying partners reported that an inability or unwillingness to express their needs had made them vulnerable to the infidelity. Communicating more openly was, therefore, crucial to restoring trust as well as building emotional connection.

While several non-straying partners reported having experienced some forgiveness early on in their healing process, non-straying partners’ forgiveness deepened as they processed their emotions and as straying partners’ actions showed evidence of trustworthiness. The time and effort required to achieve this level of forgiveness supports Enright and Fitzgibbonss’ (2015) conceptualization of forgiveness as involving a decision and work prior to experiencing relief. Previous meta-analytic research (Rasmussen et al., 2019) supports our finding that non-straying partners’ forgiveness facilitated their healing and, in process of time, straying partners’ forgiveness of themselves (Kim et al., 2021). Although some straying partners did not endorse needing to forgive themselves, others reported that this was a significant component of individual and relational healing. Future research should explore the need for self-forgiveness and the short and long-term outcomes of the straying partner’s self-forgiveness.

Our model addresses how the process of restoring trust changes over time — from initial overt accountability to eventual acceptance of trustworthiness. Multiple factors influenced the extent to which trust was damaged by the infidelity and the degree to which couples were able to re-establish trust, including disclosure versus discovery, straying partner responsiveness versus defensiveness, and non-straying partner responses to doubts and insecurity. The couples in our sample emphasized that trust required the actions of both partners as straying partners demonstrated trustworthiness and as non-straying partners responded to lingering doubts by seeking reassurance rather than interrogating their partners. The interpersonal view of trust described in our data is supported by research that conceptualizes infidelity as an attachment injury (Gossner et al., 2022; Johnson et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2021a). Couples with more time since the revelation of infidelity more commonly reported feeling a high level of trust.

Couples reported making meaning out of their healing as they identified areas of growth accomplished through their efforts to reconcile and rebuild. Eventually, as couples successfully worked through the processes discussed above, they stopped defining themselves, their partners, and their relationship by the infidelity. The important role of making meaning out of infidelity is well supported by other models (Abrahamson et al., 2012; Gossner et al., 2022).

Role of therapy in healing

The second question guiding this study was, “What is the role of therapy in promoting healing?” Following the infidelity, 11 of the 16 couples attended couples therapy, and 11 of the 32 individuals also attended individual therapy. For some couples, therapy was an enduring component of their healing journey, lasting for months of their process. For other couples, however, therapy was a temporary support, lasting less than five sessions. Couples and individuals reported that therapy facilitated each area of individual and relational healing as they were able to communicate productively, appreciate the other’s perspective and experience, and learn how to reconnect. Atkins et al. (2010) and Marin et al. (2014) similarly report that couples therapy effectively increases relationship satisfaction and reduces depression following infidelity. Couples therapists scaffolded necessary conversations about the infidelity, whereas individual therapists helped participants to prepare for these conversations by providing opportunities to practice expressing themselves and providing safe holding for volatile emotions.

While our sample is not conducive to statistical tests, we note that the couples in our sample who did not attend therapy were younger (24.8 compared to 29.2 years old) and had shorter relationship durations (1.4 years compared to 3.8 years) at the time of infidelity than couples who did attend therapy. They also described the infidelity as less impactful than couples who did attend therapy. Taken together, our findings support the assertion that when couples are more established, infidelity is more likely to be experienced as an attachment injury (Johnson et al., 2001; Mitchell et al., 2021a), leading couples to seek therapeutic support.

Clinical implications

A primary implication of our results is that different couples (and individual partners) may experience the infidelity as more or less impactful. Based on our results, relevant factors that may influence perception of the infidelity are couples’ shared history, relationship length, and sociocultural context. We recommend that therapists working with individuals or couples seeking to heal from infidelity assess the relative perception and impact of the infidelity for each couple, rather than automatically adopting a relationship trauma (Baucom et al., 2017; Warach & Josephs, 2021) or attachment injury (Johnson et al., 2001) framework. This will allow therapists to better tailor their interventions to each couples’ experience.

A second implication of our results is that brief therapy for infidelity may be sufficient for some couples. Key components of brief couples therapy for infidelity could include helping couples develop skills and practices for reconnection, perspective-taking, communicating feelings and needs clearly, and responding empathically. Additionally, therapists can normalize the emotional experience of both partners and help them clarify their values in the relationship. Regardless of the length of treatment, couples value having a therapist who is supportive of their desire to stay in and work on the relationship.

A third implication is the potential synergism between couples therapy and individual therapy. All 11 participants who attended individual therapy following the infidelity also attended couples therapy. For couples who choose to stay together, individual therapy may be most beneficial when it provides a forum to process emotions and work on personal improvements in order to help the relationship. Additionally, individual therapists can help coach clients to acknowledge and make space for their emotions and perceptions while expressing their needs to their partners in ways that invite dialogue and understanding.

Limitations and future directions

Expanding on previous research involving couples (Mitchell et al., 2021b), our study included a relatively large, ethnically diverse sample. Using grounded theory methodology allowed us to explore key commonalities and to understand a general progression of healing across participants. However, by reducing the experience of 16 couples down to commonalities, we inevitably were unable to explore the full nuance of differences in the healing process based on relationship status or duration, sociocultural variables, gender identity, disability status, and infidelity-specific factors. Additionally, we did not directly ask about several additional potentially important variables, including presence of children, relationship status at infidelity, discovery versus disclosure, and experiencing multiple infidelities. Future research should further explore differences in healing based on these and other variables, perhaps employing mixed methods research to allow for holistic examinations of variations in healing. Additionally, future research should examine differences in the experience of healing and couples’ narratives of healing based on time since experiencing the infidelity.

A second limitation is that since we recruited primarily through a university setting, our sample was relatively young, educated, and heterosexual. This could potentially limit the applicability of our results to educated heterosexual couples who have been together for a relatively brief period of time. We encourage further research that more directly attends to the experiences of older couples, LGBTQIA couples, and couples with lower levels of education. Rather than risk generalizing our results beyond their scope, we encourage clinicians to collaborate with their clients in exploring ways our model can inform their healing process.

Conclusion

Our study expands upon the current literature by offering a model of couple healing from infidelity that includes the experiences of couples who attended therapy and those who did not. Our results suggest that couple healing includes the revelation, initial responses, stabilizing the relationship, and revitalizing the relationship. Couples’ shared history, sociocultural context, and professional and informal support shape their experience of infidelity and healing process. We hope these findings will inform understanding and treatment for couples seeking healing.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental Material - Couple healing from infidelity: A grounded theory study

Supplemental Material for Couple healing from infidelity: A grounded theory study by Stephen T. Fife, Jacob D. Gossner, Alex Theobald, Emma Allen, Ariana Rivero and Heather Koehl in Journal of Social and Personal Relationships

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for our participants’ courageous willingness to share their experiences of healing. We express appreciation to Jordan Harrell and Dane Egleston for assistance early in the research process.

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 funding from the Jerry M. Lewis, M.D. Mental Health Research Foundation (A21-0275-001).

Data and materials availability

The data used for this study are not available. Materials used for this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

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 upon request. The materials can be obtained by emailing: stephen.fife@ttu.edu

ORCID iDs

Stephen T. Fife

Jacob D. Gossner

Emma Allen

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

References

Abrahamson

Hussain

Khan

Schofield

M. J.

(2012). What helps couples rebuild their relationship after infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 33(11), 1494–1519. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X11424257

Afifi

W. A.

Falato

W. L.

Weiner

J. L.

(2001). Identity concerns following a severe relational transgression: The role of discovery method for the relational outcomes of infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 18(2), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407501182007

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

Atkins

D. C.

Marín

R. A.

T. T. Y.

Klann

Hahlweg

(2010). Outcomes of couples with infidelity in a community-based sample of couple therapy. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(2), 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018789

Barnett

J. K.

Youngberg

(2004). Forgiveness as a ritual in couples therapy. The Family Journal, 12(1), 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066480703258613

Baucom

D. H.

Pentel

K. Z.

Gordon

K. C.

Snyder

D. K.

(2017). An integrative approach to treating infidelity in couples. In Fitzgerald

(Ed.), Foundations for couples’ therapy: Research for the real world (pp. 206–215). Routledge.

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

Braithwaite

S. R.

Selby

E. A.

Fincham

F. D.

(2011). Forgiveness and relationship satisfaction: Mediating mechanisms. Journal of Family Psychology, 25(4), 551–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024526

10.

Butler

M. H.

Gossner

J. D.

Fife

S. T.

(2022). Partners taking turns leaning in and leaning out: Trusting in the healing arc of attachment dynamics following betrayal. Journal of couple and relationship therapy, 21(3), 233–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332691.2021.1926388

11.

Charmaz

(2014). Constructing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

12.

Chi

Tang

Worthington

E. L.

Chan

C. L.

Lam

D. O.

Lin

(2019). Intrapersonal and interpersonal facilitators of forgiveness following spousal infidelity: A stress and coping perspective. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 75(10), 1896–1915. https://doi-org/10.1002/jclp.22825

13.

Corbin

Strauss

(2015). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (4th ed.). Sage.

14.

Cornish

Gillespie

Zittoun

(2014). Collaborative analysis of qualitative data. The Sage handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 79–93). Sage. https://www.doi.org/10.4135/9781446282243

15.

Enright

R. D.

Fitzgibbons

R. P.

(2015). Forgiveness therapy: An empirical guide for resolving anger and restoring hope. American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14526-000

16.

Fife

S. T.

Theobald

A. C.

Gossner

J. D.

Yakum

B. N.

White

K. L.

(2022). Individual healing from infidelity and breakup for emerging adults: A grounded theory. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 39(6), 1814–1838. https://doi.org/10.1177/02654075211067441

17.

Fife

S. T.

Weeks

G. R.

Gambescia

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

18.

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

19.

Fox

Thomas

(2008). Impact of religious affiliation and religiosity on forgiveness. Australian Psychologist, 43(3), 175–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060701687710

20.

Gossner

J. D.

Fife

S. T.

Butler

M. H.

(2022). Couple healing from infidelity: A deductive qualitative analysis study. Sexual and Relationship Therapy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2022.2086231

21.

Gottman

(2017). The natural principles of love. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12182

22.

Guitar

A. E.

Geher

Kruger

D. J.

Garcia

J. R.

Fisher

M. L.

Fitzgerald

C. J.

(2017). Defining and distinguishing sexual and emotional infidelity. Current Psychol, 36, 434–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-016-9432-4.

23.

Gunderson

P. R.

Ferrari

J. R.

(2008). Forgiveness of sexual cheating in romantic relationships: Effects of discovery method, frequency of offense, and presence of apology. North American Journal of Psychology, 10(1). https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=txshracd2579&id=GALE|A178452275&v=2.1&it=r&sid=bookmark-AONE&asid=b71b4963.

24.

Hall

W. A.

Long

Bermbach

Jordan

Patterson

(2005). Qualitative teamwork issues and strategies: Coordination through mutual adjustment. Qualitative Health Research, 15(3), 394–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304272015

25.

Johnson

S. M.

(2005). Broken bonds: An emotionally focused approach to infidelity. Journal of Couple and Relationship Therapy, 4(2–3), 17–29. https://doi.org/10.1300/J398v04n02_03

26.

Johnson

S. M.

Makinen

J. A.

Millikin

J. W.

(2001). Attachment injuries in couple relationships: A new perspective on impasses in couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 27(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2001.tb01152.x

27.

Khumas

Indahari

N. A.

Rachman

A. T.

(2020, October). Rebuilding trust: Psychological change in couples who have an affair. In Dirawan

G. D.

Waziri

A. Y.

Chao

E. C.

(Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd international Conference on education, science, and technology (ICEST 2019), 19-20 October, 2019, Makassar, Indonesia, (481, pp. 109–114). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/assehr.k.201027.024

28.

Kim

Ragasajo

L. J. C.

Kolacz

R. L.

Painter

K. J.

Pritchard

J. D.

Wrobleski

(2021). The interplay between divine, victim, and self-forgiveness: The relationship between three types of forgiveness and psychological outcomes. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 50(4), 414–427. https://doi.org/10.1177/00916471211046226

29.

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

30.

Marín

R. A.

Christensen

Atkins

D. C.

(2014). Infidelity and behavioral couple therapy: Relationship outcomes over 5 years following therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000012

31.

Mitchell

E. A.

Wittenborn

A. K.

Timm

T. M.

Blow

A. J.

(2021a). Affair recovery: Exploring similarities and differences of injured and involved partners. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(2), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12538

32.

Mitchell

E. A.

Wittenborn

A. K.

Timm

T. M.

Blow

A. J.

(2021b). Examining the role of the attachment bond in the process of recovering from an affair. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 49(3), 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2020.1791763

33.

Olson

M. M.

Russell

C. S.

Higgins-Kessler

Miller

R. B.

(2002). Emotional processes following disclosure of an extramarital affair. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28(4), 423–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2002.tb00367.x

34.

Pettijohn

T. F.

Ndoni

(2013). Imagined infidelity scenario forgiveness and distress: The role of method of discovery and specific cheating behavior. Research in Psychology and Behavioral Sciences, 1(2), 11–14. https://doi.org/10.12691/rpbs-1-2-1

35.

Rasmussen

K. R.

Stackhouse

Boon

S. D.

Comstock

Ross

(2019). Meta-analytic connections between forgiveness and health: The moderating effects of forgiveness-related distinctions. Psychology and Health, 34(5), 515–534. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2018.1545906

36.

Saldana

(2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Sage Publications Inc.

37.

Warach

Josephs

(2021). The aftershocks of infidelity: A review of infidelity-based attachment trauma. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 36(1), 68–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14681994.2019.1577961

38.

Weeks

G. R.

Fife

S. T.

(2009). Rebuilding intimacy following infidelity. Psychotherapy in Australia, 15(3), 28–39. https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.543586338319623.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB