Couple healing from infidelity: a deductive qualitative analysis study
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From “Your Addiction, her Sexual Suffering”—A Qualitative Inquiry into the Effects of Compulsive Sexual Behaviors on Intimate Female Partners (2025) · cites this paper as Gossner et al., 2024
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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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