Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Helps Couples Rebuild Their Relationship After Infidelity?
What Helps Couples Rebuild Their Relationship After Infidelity?
ermission:
JFI331110.1177/0192513X1142425
ournalsPermissions.nav
After Infidelity?
Abstract
Despite infidelity being a highly traumatic experience, not all couples end
their relationship after discovery of the affair. The present study provides
insights into the experience of couples who remained together after hav-
ing experienced infidelity by one partner. Narrative inquiry methods were
used to undertake and analyze in-depth interviews with eligible participants
from eastern Australia who responded to advertisements. The key themes
acknowledged by participants as reasons for maintaining the relationship
were motivation to stay together, treasuring acts of kindness, meaning mak-
ing, and social support. However, the reconciliation process was tortuous
and involved forgiveness, seeking counseling, managing memories, vicari-
ous learning, and changing couple dynamics. In rebuilding the relationship,
a modification often took place, resulting in a shift in the power dynamic.
The article outlines professional considerations for counselors and other
therapists in relation to professional practice.
Keywords
infidelity, narrative inquiry, counseling, Australia
1
University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales, Australia
2
La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Corresponding Author:
Rafat Hussain, School of Rural Medicine, University of New England, Armidale, New South
Wales 2351, Australia
Email: rhussain@une.edu.au
Abrahamson et al. 1495
Introduction
Infidelity is a common phenomenon in marriages (Atkins, Baucom, &
Jacobson, 2001; Dupree, White, Olsen, & Lafluer, 2007; Gordon, Baucom,
& Snyder, 2004), with lifetime prevalence rates estimated at 20% to 40%
(Blow & Hartnett, 2005a) and up to 45% to 60% (Gordon, Baucom, & Snyder,
2004). Infidelity has serious consequences for relationships (Peluso & Spina,
2008) and is one of the most common reasons for couples entering couple
therapy (Whisman, Dixon, & Johnson, 1997). However, extramarital affairs
are considered by couple counselors as one of the most difficult problems to
treat (Whisman et al., 1997) and thus need to be better understood.
A key focus of existing research has been to understand the reasons for
couples having affairs. Researchers have presented a variety of typologies of
affairs (Weeks, Gambescia, & Jenkins, 2003). For example, Levine’s (1998)
four categories include affairs, just sex, making do, and imaginary-partner
sex. Pittman (1989) and Pittman and Wagers (1995) categorize infidelity as
the accidental encounter, habitual philandering, romantic affairs, and marital
arrangements. Lusterman (1998) lists eight types of affairs: entitlement, sex-
ual identity, sexual addiction, exploratory affairs, tripod affairs, retaliatory
affairs, exit affairs, and midlife events. Brown’s (2001) typology includes
five types of affairs: conflict-avoidant, intimacy-avoidant, sexual addiction,
empty nest, and out-of-the-door. Bagarozzi (2008) proposes seven catego-
ries: brief encounters, periodic encounters, instrumental and utilitarian
affairs, short-term affairs triggered by developmental challenges or changing
life circumstances, paraphiliac affairs, cathartic affairs, and more complex
and enduring relationships. Although there is considerable overlap within
and across these typologies, it is also clear that there is a wide variety of rea-
sons for and patterns of infidelity.
Infidelity has been associated with multiple factors including gender, with
a higher frequency among men (Atkins et al., 2001), and poor marital satisfac-
tion (Atkins et al., 2001; Blow & Hartnett, 2005a, 2005b; Brown, 2001). When
two-person systems are under stress, a third person is sometimes brought in to
stabilize the relationship (Atwood & Seifer, 1997; Carter & McGoldrick,
1999). However, triangles are often dysfunctional in that they offer stabiliza-
tion through diversion rather than through resolution of the issues in the cou-
ple’s relationship. After the secret is revealed, relationship issues may still be
obscured, as attention tends to be focused on the affair instead of their part
in the marital issues that predated the affair (Carter & McGoldrick, 1999).
The difficult emotional and relationship processes that couples experienc-
ing a disclosure of infidelity tend to go through have been described by a
1496 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)
Method
To understand the experience of a complex socioemotional phenomenon
such as infidelity, a methodology was required that allowed for the revelation
of the breadth and depth of the informants’ subjective experiences as well as
their relationship story. Traditional qualitative methodologies of interview-
ing and coding such as grounded theory have the potential to fragment or
decontextualize the events, whereas a narrative approach allows for multiple
perspectives to be woven together in a process of making sense of the phases
of revelation, adjustment, and change in their lives (Reissman, 1997).
A narrative approach to interviewing and analysis was thus adopted to
investigate the storied experiences of living and coping with infidelity using
the informant’s own voice (McLeod, 2001). Such an approach allows mean-
ing attributed to objects or events to be constructed through an ongoing pro-
cess of interaction with their environment. The story that is constructed is
reflexive (Bruner, 1990) and subject to constant editing and updating as
informants’ lives are lived and their personal understanding and awareness
changes (Crotty, 1998). A narrative inquiry design is therefore particularly
useful in examining nonnormative experiences such as infidelity (Reissman,
1997, 2003; Stuhlmiller, 2001). We used postmodernism as the underlying
conceptual framework as individuals’ perceptions of past infidelity is not
based on one objective reality but on multiple realities molded by their per-
sonal, social, and cultural constructs. Moreover, postmodernism allows a
focus on narratives and texts as interpretations of the “lived experience”
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2000).
One of the methodological challenges for the present research was choos-
ing the terminology that could capture the roles of the marital partners in
infidelity. At differing times in the literature, the one having the affair has
been described as the “involved partner” (Moultrup, 2003), the “infidel”
(Pittman, 1991), the “participating partner” (Gordon et al., 2004), or the
“offending partner” (Olson et al., 2002; Zola, 2007)—all of which have a
1498 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)
pejorative tone. Descriptions of the partner not having the affair have been
the “cuckold” (Pittman, 1991), the “injured partner” (Gordon et al., 2004;
Olson et al., 2002), the “noninvolved partner” (Moultrup, 2003), or the “non-
extramaritally involved spouse” (Bird et al., 2007). Given that sexual exclu-
siveness is an assumption for most couples in a marital relationship (Atkins,
Baucom, Eldridge, & Christensen, 2005), we chose the terms nonexclusive
partner for the individual having engaged in the extramarital affair, and
exclusive partner for the individual not having an affair to describe the roles
of partners, while minimizing a judgmental or pejorative tone.
Procedure
An in-depth interview method was used to elicit the informants’ stories
about the affair, how it had occurred, how it was disclosed, how the partners
responded to disclosure, and how they managed their relationship over the
postdisclosure period. They were also asked to reflect on the relationship
more broadly, why they thought the affair occurred, and what contributed to
Abrahamson et al. 1499
them being able to maintain the relationship after disclosure. Thus the inter-
view focused not just on events but also on their interpretation of these
events. The informants told of their challenges and how they faced these
and how they had arrived at the place they were in at the time of the inter-
view. This method was consistent with the goal of narrative inquiry, which
is not to provide verifiable accounts of events but, rather, to understand the
meaning attached to events and how this changes over time (Reissman,
2003). The relationship that builds between the researcher and the informant
is unique and inherently means that what is said during this encounter may
not be replicated if someone else were to elicit the narrative.
Interviews were conducted with volunteer informants in 2005-2006 by the
first author. The location of the interview was negotiated to suit each infor-
mant and interviews lasted approximately 90 minutes. Prior to the interview,
informed consent for audiotape recording of interviews was obtained. The
informant’s right to privacy, anonymity, and confidentiality were respected
via a pseudonym chosen by each informant. After each interview, the inter-
viewer made notes containing the impressions, reflections, and feelings about
the interview and each informant’s story as a whole. By the seventh inter-
view, considerable consistency in key themes was found, although it is too
small a sample to claim that saturation had been reached.
Results
Sample Characteristics
Not only did my dad die but also I was having problems at home and
at work. My son was in trouble at school and my wife was trying to
handle it as much as possible. But, she unloaded on me and at the same
time I wasn’t happy at work. I didn’t fit in with my work mates and felt
alone most of the time. I suppose I had a lot on my mind. Anyway,
I found that a new girl at work seemed to notice me and said, “Hi,”
now and then. One day we just started talking and I found that she
listened to me and didn’t expect me to solve her problems. I began to
look forward to seeing her smiling face at work. She was the only
bright spark in my life. A few weeks later after the staff party we
became lovers. It was great, but I did feel guilty sometimes. (Gary)
This girl was at work and she was interested in me, got to me during a
low time. She was privy to what I earned and I think that was part of
1502 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)
her attraction to me. Not that I like to admit that but being realistic
about it. She was 14 years younger than me, being 28 or 29 and I was
about 44. She came up with all these wonderful ideas on how to make
my business more professional like salary sacrificing and I sort of fell
into it. At a conference she sat next to me one weekend, so close to me
that I could feel the vibes and it was yummy. I didn’t do anything,
I resisted that. It would have been about 6 months later at another con-
ference, I had a few beers under my belt and she made it clear that she
was available and I ended up in her room. (Darren)
What these stories seemed to point to was the difficulty informants had in
managing their emotional life. Despite clear warning signs of problems in
their emotional life and their primary relationship, the problems were not
actively dealt with. Rather, the informants’ stories were of stoicism in the
face of difficulties, initial resistance to temptation, and then capitulation
when resistance failed.
I had organized for the children to be looked after and decided to sur-
prise him by accompanying him to Sydney. I jumped up in the morning
and said “I’m coming with you” and he said “Oh, that’s good . . . we
booked into the hotel that the company had organized for him and the
lady behind the reception desk said, “Oh this is Mr. H’s account from
last week.” The moment I took that envelope (normally he wouldn’t
get a bill because the company would pay for it), I had a feeling this
was strange and when I checked the bill I saw dinner and breakfast for
two. He denied it for a little while and eventually the other woman’s
Abrahamson et al. 1503
The immediate feelings and responses around the discovery of the affair
were varied. Similar to experiencing any trauma, the feelings were intense
and overwhelming. Feelings such as shock, horror, denial, anger, hurt,
anguish, despair, guilt, sadness, inadequacy, rejection, and betrayal surfaced
with actions of yelling, silence, withdrawal, and distancing. For those who
had the affair, their feelings were ambivalent as they sometimes felt remorse
but also elation over what had occurred.
After having had one failed marriage, I did not want to fail again and
be labeled a loser. I was determined to save my marriage and so I made
the decision to win. (Darren)
This touched me deeply, so much so, that I marveled at him and knew
he was the better man. This act was so sacrificial and noble, and in my
heart I honored him for it, but at the time I could not speak of it, but
I treasured it. (Bella)
I felt stuck in blaming him for having the affair. Then I gradually real-
ized that I also played a part in what happened. It dawned on me that
we were like a pair of shoes that go together and I found that strangely
challenging but also liberating. (Cheryl)
In the process of meaning making, the couples found that talking with
each other about what went wrong was helpful. Even though it was difficult,
they were able to listen and respond. One exclusive female decided that she
had a “choice to be better, not bitter.” Several informants described going
through an experience of cognitive dissonance, a state of extreme discomfort
resulting from the discrepancy between their own and society’s beliefs about
the exclusivity of relationships, their confidence in their partner’s love and
commitment, and their overt behavior in having the affair.
Several experienced the process of making meaning and healing in a spiral
pattern. In other words, it involved a process of moving forward and upward
at certain times and at other times, going backward and feeling like they were
back at “square one.” However, by the time of the interviews, the informants
no longer felt this was the case as they gradually realized that progress was
1506 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)
being consolidated for further grieving and healing to take place. As one
nonexclusive partner described it:
On the other hand, the nonexclusive partners found that they were criti-
cized for their infidelity, and they received much less support from family
and friends. Instead, they found others were skeptical that they would be able
to change their behavior. For example, one nonexclusive partner said,
Active Reconciliation
Once informants had made the commitment to stay and rebuild the relation-
ship, they identified a number of strategies that helped them actively reconcile.
These included an intention and practice of forgiveness, going to couple
counseling, managing intrusive and negative memories, and vicarious learn-
ing. The process of rebuilding the relationship was described in all cases as
leading to a modification of the fundamental dyadic dynamic of the relationship.
Abrahamson et al. 1507
There was a lot of pain for us both, but we talked about what went
wrong and how we could make it right. We realized how we had been
1508 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)
so critical of each other and then how the other one would sulk. It
wasn’t easy. In fact it was bloody hard. (Gary)
Initially it would come up sometimes but I tried very hard not to. In
bringing it up, you’ve got to remember you’re bringing her back to his
mind and his thoughts. Every time you raise her name, you are bringing
her back into his mind. To be honest, after we reconciled there wasn’t
a day that went by for about 4 years that I didn’t think about it. (Cheryl)
I think it helped that our counselor had also had an affair. He seemed
to understand what we were going through and he gave us hope that
our relationship could recover. Also the fact that my parents had sur-
vived infidelity was helpful.
I wasn’t going to be the ex-wife from hell. I wasn’t going to hand him
to her on a plate. I’ve seen a lot of bitter women. I have a sister-in-law
who has been through this and she can’t let that bitterness go. She
Abrahamson et al. 1509
Changing couple dynamics. Each informant came away from the experience
of infidelity with an awareness of how far he or she had come or how much
they had emotionally developed. Informants were aware that destructive pat-
terns of relating had been replaced by a more constructive and rewarding way
of being in a relationship and understanding each other. They were empow-
ered by learning techniques in improved communication that enhanced their
ability to express themselves appropriately. The impact on the relationship
was a gradual consolidation of trust and intimacy that ultimately affected the
dynamics of the relationship. A nonexclusive male explained how trust was
reestablished:
He is really the needy one now. It’s almost like a role reversal in many
aspects. When you reconcile after infidelity there is a real shift in
power and you have to be really careful how you use that. (Cheryl)
We set some ground rules such as she would control the money with
the signing rights and do the books. I couldn’t just come and go as
I pleased, but had to be accountable for my whereabouts. (Darren)
We have entered the best and most tender time of our marriage. It’s
like “coming home” with feelings of acceptance, security, and comfort
knowing you are loved, no matter what! (Bella)
To summarize, there were four key themes that were influential in the
decision to maintain the relationship. These were motivation, acts of kind-
ness, meaning making, and support. Forgiveness and counseling allowed the
couples to repair their relationship. In rebuilding their relationship, a modifi-
cation took place, resulting in a shift in the power dynamic, and there was a
sense of satisfaction at surviving infidelity.
Discussion
This study sought to address the considerable dearth of qualitative research
on factors that help couples rebuild their relationship after marital infidelity.
One of the few existing qualitative studies has highlighted the practical and
methodological difficulties in recruiting real-world samples to undertake in-
depth studies of this sensitive topic (Bird et al., 2007). We addressed past
shortcomings by recruiting a larger number of participants, including both
exclusive and nonexclusive partners (one participant per couple), and exam-
1512 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)
include therapist gatekeeping, the sensitivity and shame associated with infi-
delity, or the need for privacy. Recruitment difficulty may also be an indica-
tor of an ongoing sense of vulnerability among those who have experienced
an affair. Despite these difficulties, the seven participants in our study seemed
to appreciate the opportunity to explore their experience and valued the
potential for it to assist other couples who seek to recover from infidelity.
The interviews took place with a postaffair time range of 2 to 10 years,
which could alter the construction of informants’ narratives. In this study,
only one of the informants was in a de facto relationship, and the rest were
married. It is plausible that a different set of issues would have emerged with
younger informants and/or by limiting the sample to only those with a recent
experience of infidelity. The self-selection of informants and their motivation
to be interviewed for this study remains unknown. Future research could
sample more broadly and include individuals who decided not to continue
their relationship to provide a better understanding the profile and motivation
of those who rebuilt their relationship and their desire to be part of such
research studies.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
References
Allen, E. S., & Atkins, D. C. (2005). The multidimensional and developmental
nature of infidelity: Practical applications. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61,
1371-1382.
Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. S., &
Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, interpersonal, and contextual factors in
engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 12, 101-130.
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Eldridge, K. A., & Christensen, A. (2005). Infidelity
and behavioral couple therapy: Optimism in the face of betrayal. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 7, 144-150.
Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., & Jacobson, N. S. (2001). Understanding infidelity:
Correlates in a national random sample. Journal of Family Psychology, 15,
735-749.
Abrahamson et al. 1517
Atkins, D. C., Marin, R. A., Lo, T. T., Klann, N., & Hahlweg, K. (2010). Outcomes of
couples with infidelity in a community-based sample of couple therapy. Journal
of Family Psychology, 24, 212-216.
Atwood, J. D., & Seifer, M. (1997). Extramarital affairs and constructed meanings: A
social constructionist therapeutic approach. American Journal of Family Therapy,
25, 55-75.
Bagarozzi, D. A. (2008). Understanding and treating marital infidelity: A multidimen-
sional model. American Journal of Family Therapy, 36(1), 1-17.
Bird, M. H., Butler, M. H., & Fife, S. T. (2007). The process of couple healing follow-
ing infidelity. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 6, 1-25.
Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005a). Infidelity in committed relationships I: A sub-
stantive review. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 31, 217-233.
Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005b). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A meth-
odological review. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 31, 183-216.
Brown, E. (2001). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment (2nd ed.). Philadelphia,
PA: Brunner/Mazel.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carter, B., & McGoldrick, T. (1999). The expanded family life cycle: Individual, fam-
ily and social perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research. Sydney, New South Wales,
Australia: Allen & Unwin.
Dattilio, F. M. (2000). Cognitive-behavioural strategies. In J Carlson & L Sperry
(Eds.), Brief therapy with individuals and couples (pp. 33-70). Phoenix, AZ: Zeig,
Tucker & Thiesen.
Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Diblasio, F. A. (2000). Decision-based forgiveness treatment in cases of marital infi-
delity. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 37, 149-158.
Dupree, W. J., White, M. B., Olsen, C. S., & Lafluer, C. T. (2007). Infidelity treat-
ment patterns: A practice-based evidence approach. American Journal of Family
Therapy, 35, 327-341.
Esmond, J., Dickinson, J. L., & Moffat, A. (1998, November). What makes for suc-
cessful and unsuccessful relationships? Paper presented at the Australian Institute
of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Fife, S. T., Weeks, G. R., & Gambescia, N. (2008). Treating infidelity: An integrative
approach. The Family Journal, 16, 316-323.
Glass, S. P. (2003). Not just friends: Protect your relationship from infidelity and heal
the trauma of betrayal. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Gordon, K. C., & Baucom, D. H. (1999). A multitheoretical intervention for promot-
ing recovery from extramarital affairs. Clinical Psychology: Science and Prac-
tice, 6, 382-399.
1518 Journal of Family Issues 33(11)