Cited by 21Marriage and Sexual RelationshipsAttachment and Relationship DynamicsForgiveness and Related Behaviors

Couple healing from infidelity: a deductive qualitative analysis study

Gossner, Jacob D., Fife, Stephen T., Butler, Mark H.·2024·Sexual and Relationship Therapy

Abstract

Infidelity is a relationship betrayal that can lead to multiple negative individual and relational outcomes. Multiple clinicians have developed practice-based models of couple healing from infidelity; however, few of these models have been systematically examined. One such model is Butler et al.’s clinical model, grounded in attachment theory and the concept of relational ambivalence. In the present study, we sought to systematically examine and refine Butler et al.’s model of couple healing from infidelity using deductive qualitative analysis of seven publicly available online blogs written by non-straying partners. Informed by the clinically based model, we generated sensitizing constructs and engaged in open, focused, and theoretical coding. Our results support several key components of the original model, while also suggesting refinements to the concept of ambivalence for straying partners as well as couple-level responses. Our results suggest that a meaningful expansion to the original model is non-straying partners’ efforts to heal individually throughout the entire healing process. We suggest clinical implications and opportunities for future research based on our analysis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/14681994.2022.2086231

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Specific emotional manifestations of infidelity-based trauma include feelings of extreme anger, betrayal, insecurity, rage, shame, guilt, jealousy and sadness.

    “Specific emotional manifestations of infidelity-based trauma include feelings of extreme anger, betrayal, insecurity, rage, shame, guilt, jealousy and sadness [24,31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40].”

    From Love and Infidelity: Causes and Consequences (2023) · cites this paper as [36]

  • Emotional impacts on partners of SA/CSB include resentment, betrayal, depression, and anxiety.

    “Emotional impacts on partners include resentment, betrayal, depression, and anxiety (Gossner et al., 2024;Lonergan et al., 2021), which often add to the social, psychological, and physical effects of SA/CSB on intimate partners (Cooper et al., 2000;Carnes, 2015;Steffens & Rennie, 2006;Weiss, 2019).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 21

Authors
Gossner, J. D., Fife, S. T., & Butler, M. H.
Affiliations
  • Utah State University (US)
  • Texas Tech University (US)
  • Brigham Young University (US)
Corresponding author
Gossner, Jacob D.
Venue
Sexual and Relationship Therapy
Published
2022-06-11
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
843-864
ISSN
  • 1468-1749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-1994
OpenAlex
W4293084052
Cited by
21
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
FWCI
5.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Sexual & Relationship Therapy (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Marriage and Sexual Relationships
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Attachment and Relationship Dynamics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
Keywords
infidelity, attachment theory, couple therapy, blogs

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review