|

Received: 12 May 2020    Accepted: 15 December 2020

DOI: 10.1111/jmft.12483

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Infidelity treatment from an integrative behavioral

couple therapy perspective: Explanatory model and
intervention strategies

Jorge Barraca1   | Thomas X. Polanski2

1
Universidad Camilo José Cela, Madrid,
Spain Abstract
2
Universidad Iberoamericana del Ecuador, Infidelity has a devastating effect on relationships and is a
Quito, Ecuador common reason for seeking couple therapy. However, few
Correspondence
empirical studies have demonstrated effective models or
Thomas X. Polanski, Mariano Paredes strategies for treating this issue. An exception is integrative
N70-­122 y Moisés Luna Andrade, Quito behavioral couple therapy (IBCT). Nevertheless, IBCT's
EC 170303, Ecuador.
Email: polanskij@gmail.com specific contributions to this therapeutic problem have not
been the main focus of any publication. This article briefly
Funding information
mentions the effects that infidelity has on intimate part-
This article has not been presented in any
previous medium nor has it been funded by ner relationships and presents the empirical evidence for
any grants. IBCT's utility in treating affairs. It places special focus on
exploring infidelity using IBCT's explanatory model. The
application of various IBCT strategies and techniques in
infidelity cases is explained both in general and with con-
crete examples. Whether couple therapy in cases of infi-
delity should focus specifically on the affair or on a wider
scope of issues is discussed, as well as new directions for
infidelity research within an IBCT framework.

I NT RO D U C TIO N

Infidelity is a common and often devastating problem in marital and other committed romantic rela-
tionships. It most commonly refers to “the participation in sexual acts with partner(s) outside of one's
committed romantic relationship where an agreement to maintain sexual exclusivity is in place” (Lee
& O'Sullivan, 2019, p. 1736). However, the definition of infidelity can vary according to the couple.
While some consider any emotional involvement with another to be infidelity, others may mark the

© 2021 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy

J Marital Fam Ther. 2021;00:1–16.  wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jmft  |  1

 |
2       BARRACA and POLANSKI

line at holding hands, kissing or other levels of physical intimacy (Thompson & O'Sullivan, 2016).
The advent of social networking has complicated matters further. Depending on one's point of view,
it is now possible to commit infidelity and cause long-­lasting damage to a committed romantic rela-
tionship without ever having met another partner face-­to-­face (Cravens et al., 2013). Some couples
view watching pornography (especially while masturbating) as a violation of monogamy while others
do not. This complexity has led some within the scientific community to define infidelity as simply
“any secret romantic activity with a secondary partner while in an exclusive relationship” (Fincham
& May, 2017, p. 70).
About 90% of Americans consider cheating to be wrong (Schwyzer, 2013; Treas & Giesen, 2000),
yet it appears to be a relatively common phenomenon. About 6% of married relationships suffer from
a sexual infidelity in a given year (Blow & Harnett, 2005; Whisman & Snyder, 2007). Lifetime rates
suggest that 20%–­25% of marriages will be affected by infidelity (Blow & Hartnett, 2005; Choi et al.,
1994; Laumann et al., 1994; Treas & Giesen, 2000; Whisman et al., 2007; Wiederman, 1997). Infidelity
rates tend to be even higher among cohabiting and dating couples than married ones (Adamopoulou,
2013; Laslasz & Weigel, 2011). In general, about 23% of men and 19% of women report sexual infi-
delity in their current committed relationship (Mark et al., 2011). However, if one takes into account
emotional and other types of infidelity (e.g., on-­line), rates are probably higher (American Association
for Marriage & Family Therapy, 2016; Fincham & May, 2017; Glass & Wright, 1992; McAnulty &
Brineman, 2007).
There are less data describing the percentage of couples who seek therapy because of infidelity.
Glass and Wright (1992) found that 25% of couples undertake therapy because of a disclosed affair;
another 30% reveal one to the therapist during the therapy process. Brown (2001) estimated that 70%
of couples begin therapy because of an affair. Marín et al.'s (2014) experimental study of integrative
behavioral couple therapy (IBCT) found that a smaller but appreciable number of participating cou-
ples (14%) were seeking therapy because of infidelity. Data from multiple societies have identified
infidelity as the most common cause of marital dissolution (Betzig, 1989; Frederick et al., 2007), and
it is commonly viewed by therapists as one of the most damaging and difficult problems to treat in
couple therapy (Heintzelman et al., 2014). At the individual level, infidelity is associated with poorer
mental health, especially anxiety and depression, and even posttraumatic stress symptoms (Allen
et al., 2005; Cano & O'Leary, 2000; Gordon et al., 2004; Shrout & Weigel, 2017). There is also some
evidence that it can affect physical health (Fisher et al., 2012). It is linked to an increase in intimate
partner violence (Brown, 2001; Buss & Duntley, 2011; Shakelford et al., 2003) and the low use of
contraceptive and protective measures with secondary partners puts the primary partner at risk for
sexually transmitted diseases (Conley et al., 2012). Furthermore, children suffer when their parents'
relationship falls apart (Amato, 2010).
Not all relationships that suffer an affair result in disaster. While some couples experience growth
and a better relationship after an affair (Charny & Parnass, 1995; Hansen, 1987; Olson et al., 2002),
the reconciliation process can be torturous, often requiring therapy and significant changes in couple
dynamics (Abrahamson et al., 2012). There are few data regarding how many relationships survive
an affair. Marín et al. (2014) followed 19 infidelity couples during 5 years as part of a larger study
(N = 134) on the effectiveness of traditional behavioral couple therapy (TBCT) and IBCT. A little
more than half (57%) of couples with a disclosed affair were still together five years after treatment.
When the offending partner refused to reveal the affair to their companion, only 20% of relationships
survived. The relationship survival rate for disclosed infidelity couples is significantly less than for
couples who had sought therapy for other reasons (77% of those relationships survived). However,
infidelity couples who stayed together experienced similar levels of marital stability and relationship
satisfaction to noninfidelity couples. Such data provide some hope for therapists working to heal
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
   3
|
infidelity (many couples can and will heal with the help of therapy) while highlighting the need to
develop more effective treatments for this difficulty given its high psychological and social costs (Hall
et al., 2008; Markman, 2005; Snyder et al., 2008).

E MP IR ICA L LY S U P P O RT E D T R EATM ENTS

FO R IN F ID EL IT Y

Many models exist for treating infidelity (e.g., Atkins et al., 2005; DiBlasio, 2000; Fife et al., 2008;
Gordon et al., 2004; Halford & Markman, 1997; Johnson, 2005; Lusterman, 1998; Negash et al.,
2018; Spring, 1996), but very few have more than practice-­based evidence or single case studies to
support their use. A good review of practice-­based evidence can be found in Dupree et al. (2007).
These authors summarize the most cited infidelity treatment literature on what clinicians have found
to work in their day-­to-­day experience. They found that most infidelity treatment models focus ini-
tially on deescalation, attempting to attenuate the emotional crisis, validate, and gain the trust of both
partners while maintaining a neutral perspective. General assessment of the relationship and infidelity
is carried out while trying to identify conflict patterns and place the infidelity in the context of the
relationship as a whole. A treatment plan is drawn up and shared and boundaries set both within and
outside of the therapist's office. In the majority of models, intervention focuses on cognitive reframing
(exploring the meaning of behaviors and connecting them with patterns of behavior in past relation-
ships), systemic restructuring (creating new behaviors and forms of communication, and negotiating
relationship boundaries) and attachment rebuilding (identifying and finding new solutions for nega-
tive interactions and new ways of expressing care, healing emotional trauma, and facilitating forgive-
ness). Some models end the process with concrete plans to prevent relapse whereas others hope that
second order change will be sufficient to prevent such events. The authors note that practice-­based
evidence is useful for filling in gaps when empirically based treatments do not yet exist and to guide
researchers towards promising new avenues of empirical study.
Some data suggest that couple therapy in general (independent of the therapy model used) helps
improve relationship satisfaction and depressive symptoms after an affair has occurred (Atkins
et al., 2010). Nevertheless, only two investigations have empirically studied the effectiveness of spe-
cific therapy models in the face of infidelity. The first, Gordon et al. (2004), tested their Integrative
Approach to Treating Infidelity in a replicated case study format. Six couples completed the pro-
cess. In general, trauma and depression-­related symptoms decreased significantly for both partners.
Injured partners (the ones not involved in the affair) also reported a notable decrease in marital distress
(0.70 intragroup effect size both posttreatment and at six-­month follow-­up) and growth in forgiveness-­
related measures (0.63–­1.45 intragroup effect size posttreatment; 0.72–­1.38 effect size at 6-­month
follow-­up). Unfortunately, the partners who had initiated the affair (sometimes called the participat-
ing partners) showed little quantitative benefit from treatment, although some expressed qualitative
benefits. Gordon et al.'s (2004) approach, explained more at length in Baucom et al. (2009), is a
three-­stage treatment. It initially focuses on teaching skills to manage emotions and encourage good
decision-­making. This is followed by a careful examination of the factors that increased the couple's
vulnerability to an affair. It ends with an exploration of beliefs about forgiveness and techniques to
help make an informed decision about whether or not to continue with the relationship. Depending on
the outcome, therapy might move towards learning separation skills or reinforcing marital satisfaction.
A second study, by Atkins et al. (2005), investigated the effectiveness of IBCT and TBCT in
couples who have suffered an affair. Part of a larger study comparing TBCT and IBCT, the authors
separated out couples who sought treatment for infidelity (n  =  19; 63% treated with TBCT, 37%
 |
4       BARRACA and POLANSKI

treated with IBCT) in order to compare their outcomes with those of noninfidelity couples involved in
the trial. In the original study, infidelity couples who started therapy experienced more distress than
couples without this problem. However, those who disclosed the affair tended to improve more in re-
lationship satisfaction over the course of treatment than noninfidelity couples. In general, marital dis-
tress diminished more, both in injured and participating partners, than what was observed in Gordon
et al.'s (2004) study, with the most notable difference in the participating partners (intragroup effect
size of 0.79 for injured partners and 1.02 for participating partners). However, there was a greater
decrease in injured partners' trauma and depression-­related symptoms in Gordon et al.'s (2004) study,
partially due to the fact that the couples in their study began treatment with a higher level of initial
individual distress (Baucom et al., 2006).
The 5-­year follow-­up (Marín et al., 2014) in Atkin et al.'s (2005) study revealed little change in
relationship satisfaction (as measured by the Dyadic Adjustment Scale-­7) in the years posttreatment
and the scores were similar for both infidelity and noninfidelity couples. Nevertheless, indicators of
clinical significance showed greater deterioration in infidelity versus noninfidelity couples over time.
Whereas approximately 60% of infidelity couples (80% of nondisclosed infidelity couples and 50%
of disclosed infidelity couples) showed deterioration in their relationship during the 5-­year follow-­up
period, only 34% of noninfidelity couples had this problem. As previously mentioned, separation rates
for infidelity couples were also higher than in noninfidelity couples. Whereas 77% of the noninfidelity
couples were still married after five years, only 57% of the disclosed infidelity couples and 20% of
the nondisclosed infidelity couples were still together. These results seem to indicate that about half
of infidelity couples benefited significantly from therapy. Those who remained married showed sim-
ilar relationship stability and satisfaction to couples who sought therapy for other reasons, and both
groups saw an increase in relationship satisfaction over time. Nevertheless, the other half of infidelity
couples saw their relationships deteriorate, often ending in divorce. It should be emphasized that nei-
ther TBCT nor IBCT are infidelity-­specific treatments; both look at infidelity as part of the general
formulation of a couple's problems and one of perhaps many responses to emotional vulnerabilities in
both partners. Treatment techniques are also somewhat different than in Gordon et al.'s (2004) model,
being especially based on empathic joining, unified detachment, acceptance, and even tolerance (these
techniques will be explored more in the following section).
What stands out from these studies is that even the most empirically supported treatments still have
lower than desired efficacy rates, especially over longer follow-­up periods, again highlighting the need
to develop more effective treatments for infidelity. The rest of this article looks to increase treatment
efficacy by offering a greater theoretical grounding for infidelity treatment from an IBCT perspective.
This model, when used properly, can help couples better understand the differences and processes
that contributed to the infidelity and that maintain polarization around it. The following sections also
provide specific guidelines and examples for clinicians regarding the use and adaptation of empathic
joining, unified detachment, and other IBCT techniques in their work with infidelity couples.

I NF ID EL IT Y F ROM A N IB C T P E RSPECTIVE

Infidelity is a behavior, and the IBCT model understands behavior contextually. This means that
behaviors like infidelity cannot be fully explained by wide spectrum biological and socio-­cultural
factors (e.g., that in certain societies, men tend to be unfaithful). Rather, couple behavior also depends
on relationship context: the personal history of each partner, the history of their relationship, and the
relationship dynamics that have developed over time from the partners' habitual ways of interacting
with each other. This context helps to understand the reasons for an affair's occurrence but does not
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
|
   5

justify the behavior. IBCT posits that both partners are responsible for the problems in their relation-
ship and have committed errors in their efforts to resolve them. Nevertheless, only one of the partners
(the one who committed the affair) is responsible for the inadequate and painful road they have taken
while trying to solve these problems (Christensen et al., 2014, 2020).
The IBCT concepts most clearly related to infidelity cases have to do with case formulation. In
broad terms, case formulation focuses on a DEEP (an IBCT acronym) analysis of the Differences
between partners that are contributing to problems in the relationship, the partners' Emotional sensi-
tivities and vulnerabilities that tend to be activated by these differences, the External circumstances
which may exacerbate the first two difficulties, and the Patterns of interaction that the couple uses to
try and navigate the resulting problem, but which instead lead to a polarization process and mutual
trap in the relationship (Christensen & Doss, 2017). There are many differences between partners that
are linked with infidelity. They include a lack of acceptance regarding the absence of or little variety
in sexual interaction, reduced attention from one's partner, the desire for other experiences or emotions
of falling in love, or spite with regards to actions taken by the other partner (which can include unfaith-
fulness or a previous infidelity) (Barraca, 2017). These differences do not tend to result in infidelity
by themselves. Rather, they must be linked to an emotional sensitivity in one or both partners who si-
multaneously engage in inadequate strategies for managing their differences. External circumstances
may contribute to greater emotional sensitivity or a poor choice of management strategies. Patterns of
interaction such as coercion, contempt, insults, and polarization, repeated consistently and continu-
ally, result in a mutual trap, or sense of “stuckness,” for each partner in which they feel that no matter
what they do, the situation/relationship does not improve (Jacobson & Christensen, 1998).
Many affairs occur during the polarization process or as an effort to escape the mutual trap. For
instance, Lewis starts to feel that his wife Mary is showing him even less attention and affection than
normal. Polarization begins when, in an effort to change Mary's behavior, Lewis starts to act more
aloof and show more attention to another woman. If Mary's reaction to this is to show even less affec-
tion to Lewis because of his aloofness and lack of attention, and if each of them continues investing
even more in their course of action in an attempt to respond to the problem, Lewis may use an affair as
a more extreme attempt to change Mary's behavior or as an effort to escape the “stuckness” he feels in
the mutual trap. DEEP analysis of this dynamic would probably reveal that Mary needs less frequent
signs of affection than Lewis to feel satisfied with the relationship (a difference between partners)
and that Lewis tends to feel rejected when he does not receive frequent signs of affection (emotional
sensitivity). Some external circumstance, like greater demands at Mary's job, may also be involved. A
pattern of interaction begins to form in which each partner shows less and less affection to the other in
an effort to change the other's behavior, polarizing the situation to the point that an infidelity occurs
as part of Lewis' efforts to escape the mutual trap. This example shows how DEEP analysis and the
IBCT framework help to better understand infidelity by taking into account the ample context of the
couple's relationship dynamics.

I NF ID EL IT Y T R E AT ME N T U S ING IBCT

Atkins et al. (2005) and Marín et al. (2014) have shown that couples who revealed an affair, and were
able to address it during sessions, improved. Therapy had almost no positive effect on those that main-
tained a secret affair; almost all such couples ended their relationship in divorce. These studies do not
distinguish which couples were treated with an IBCT focus versus TBCT regimen, since the small n of
both groups within the analysis did not lend itself to such distinction. Both investigations mention that
couples in IBCT “focused on the emotional impact of the infidelity and on understanding its origins
 |
6       BARRACA and POLANSKI

and meaning” (Marín et al., 2014, p. 4). This statement is very general and does not offer much insight
into what occurred during therapy sessions. Fortunately, IBCT's authors have been somewhat more
detailed regarding infidelity treatment in other texts (Baucom et al., 2006; Christensen et al., 2014,
2020; Jacobson & Christensen, 1998). The following section combines this information with work
elaborated by the first of this article's authors to detail the use of IBCT in infidelity cases.

Revealing the existence of the affair

Some infidelity couples arrive at therapy because the injured partner has already learned of their
partner's affair; it is the couple's chief complaint at their first appointment. During the initial session,
the therapist generally presents an overview of the IBCT perspective on infidelity and the treatment
process (e.g., the division of IBCT into assessment and treatment phases, an introductory explanation
of DEEP variables, the amount of time that will be given to exploring the details of the affair vs. other
themes, etc.). Individual sessions then explore each partner's personal history and their perspective
of the history of the relationship. The therapist will ask each party to detail the primary issues they
observe in their relationship as well as the significance they assign to the affair. Case formulation will
follow as in the normal IBCT process. When the injured partner still has few details of the affair, the
first treatment sessions usually involve the participating partner sharing more information about the
infidelity.
In other cases, an affair only comes to light during the participating partner's individual assessment
session. IBCT literature repeatedly recommends that therapy should not commence while an affair is
occurring. In such cases, the partner maintaining the extramarital relationship will continue putting
effort and energy into the third person instead of therapy (Christensen et al., 2020). Empirical inves-
tigations indeed ratify that when a partner hides their current infidelity and therapy continues, the
result is almost always poor (Atkins et al., 2005; Marín et al., 2014). In the original IBCT literature,
Jacobson and Christensen (1998) suggest that a current affair should be both terminated and divulged
to the injured partner. However, the therapy process may also go forward as long as the participating
partner is willing and able to end their affair, even if they refuse to reveal its existence to their partner.
This strategy is generally less desirable and more complicated to implement (e.g., it requires follow-­up
by the therapist to ensure compliance) but still allowable (Christensen et al., 2020). Ethically, the
therapist should refuse to continue couple therapy in infidelity cases when the participating partner
refuses to end their affair. If therapy were to continue, the mental health professional would be offer-
ing a treatment with little guarantee of success and even contributing to a deceit. In such circumstance,
the therapist will instruct the participating partner to inform their companion that the couple therapy
process cannot continue.
The recommendation is quite different regarding the revelation of past affairs (no longer occurring)
which do not have an effect on the day-­to-­day life of the couple. Therapists should explore the involved
partner's view and feelings about past affairs in the individual session; however, the general indication
is to not bring them to light with the injured partner. Such a revelation could cause unnecessary pain
and weaken confidence between partners while contributing few if any benefits to the relationship
(Jacobson & Christensen, 1998). Even so, there can be exceptions to this rule (Christensen et al.,
2020). For instance, the participating partner could decide that revelation of a past affair would be
beneficial for the relationship if the injured partner has shown prolonged and continued suspicion of
its existence. In such cases, “coming clean” about a past infidelity may actually promote a greater at-
mosphere of transparency (and eventual confidence) in the relationship. This option must be carefully
evaluated given the danger involved.
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
|
   7

The therapist who learns of a current infidelity during an individual evaluation session will invite
the participating partner to reveal the affair to the injured partner. If they agree, they may wish to
terminate the affair before revealing its existence. However, the couple can also confront this task
together after the revelation (one such technique for doing so will be discussed later in this article).
Sometimes the assessment phase of therapy is extended or couple therapy is postponed while one or
both partners tackle the issue (Christensen et al., 2020).
With regards to the revelation itself, the therapist will generally indicate to the involved partner
that they can reveal the affair during the couple's feedback session. This allows the couple to benefit
from the therapist's presence, which can be a source of support for both the injured and participat-
ing partners. The revelation can result in very painful moments for the couple and risks provoking a
separation, but investigations have shown that maintaining an active infidelity in secret is even more
dangerous for the relationship (Atkins et al., 2005; Marín et al., 2014). The participating partner can
prepare and practice with the therapist how they want to reveal the infidelity in order to diminish its
traumatic impact. The therapist can also act as a model for the injured partner during the revelation by
validating the confession behavior. The therapist will never diminish the importance of the infidelity
nor judge it. Rather, they will help the couple to understand it in context. The therapist does not ap-
prove or disapprove of behaviors; they simply validate the emotions and feelings of both members of
the couple (Barraca, 2017).

Sharing specific details about the affair

Once an infidelity is revealed, the therapist's first proposal will be to cut ties with the third person.
Proximity and conversations with the extradyadic partner easily result in the rekindling of intimate
emotions, and can lead in turn to renewed physical contact. At the same time, the therapist will em-
phasize that the injured partner has the right to ask for and possess evidence of the participating part-
ner's actions to end the affair. They also have the right to ask for health information (e.g., regarding
sexually transmitted diseases and the existence of children with the extradyadic partner). This right to
information may also include other details of the relationship such as its duration, level of emotional
implication, if the participating partner and the third party went to similar places or had similar experi-
ences to those that the couple had, and whether sexual relations occurred in the couple's home or bed
(Christensen et al., 2014, 2020).
Debate exists among clinicians concerning the amount of detail that the participating partner should
give regarding an affair. Specific sexual and emotional information can turn into an obsession or trau-
matic experience for the partner who has suffered the infidelity (Gordon et al., 2004). However, if the
participating partner hides information or does not respond clearly to the injured partner's questions,
the injured partner's distrust will only increase. In order to balance these concerns, Christensen et al.
(2014) recommend that, at the beginning of therapy, the offending partner should share everything,
without minimizing anything, even “round[ing] up” (p. 202) the number of interactions with the ex-
tradyadic partner. This helps the injured party to satiate their need for information and promotes trans-
parency. After this initial period, further interrogation is discouraged, especially at inappropriate times
(e.g., in the middle of the night or interrupting one of the couple's positive activities). Consequently,
the therapist should initially program a few sessions (no more than two or three) in which the injured
partner can ask the offending partner all of their questions regarding the affair. The purpose of these
sessions and their limited timeframe will be explained to both partners. The injured partner can even
bring along a written list of their questions, and the participating partner should answer them truth-
fully. The therapist should be careful that these sessions do not turn into an aggressive interrogation
 |
8       BARRACA and POLANSKI

process. Rather, they must encourage the injured partner to be frank about the meaning and impor-
tance they attach to their questions and to describe the types of hurt or other emotions associated with
the answers received (Christensen et al., 2020). This type of communication can help foster empathy
between partners, an important ingredient for reconciliation. Nevertheless, this dynamic should be
terminated after these initial sessions. Unending, it would impede the reconstruction of the couple's
bond and the injured partner's healing as well as frustrating the involved partner who might come to
believe that their confession has been in error.
During the rest of therapy, the therapist will work to help the couple avoid additional polarization
regarding the infidelity as the exacerbation of each partner's position is common (Barraca, 2017). For
example, Paul has admitted an affair to his partner Alice. However, upon experiencing Alice's unwill-
ingness to turn the page on the event, he may try to minimize what happened, justifying it based on
their relationship history (Alice has not wanted to have sexual relations with him for several months).
He may even accuse her of overreacting. In response to these reproaches, Alice may feel even less un-
derstood, becoming more angry and hurt. Seeing such pain in Alice, Paul may feel the need to reduce
his sense of guilt by expressing his desire for understanding to Alice. However, Alice may well react to
this by feeling even less understood, believing that she is the only member of the couple who deserves
help and empathy. In response to such an attitude, Paul may distance himself in the relationship to
avoid more conflict, believing that it was a mistake to have confessed the affair. Alice in turn, feeling
this distance, may see her distrust, pain, and attitude of persecution towards Paul grow even more.
With each step the relationship dynamic becomes more destructive and absorbing. Soon therapy will
have to untangle a whole world of reproaches, misunderstandings, and other related actions that might
be even more painful and difficult to manage than the infidelity itself!
One of the therapist's fundamental jobs is to help the couple see that such polarization only leads
to another mutual trap. Even if each person's polarization tactic sometimes causes the other to cede
or capitulate, and they “win”, the relationship will always “lose.” Even though one partner has “won
the battle,” they are “losing the war” because the real goal is to reestablish the bond between partners.
For that to happen, solutions must benefit both of them, not just one side. The couple must arrive at a
double conclusion. On the one hand, the injured partner cannot permanently punish the participating
partner; at some point, this goal must be abandoned regardless of the real nature of the offense. On
the other hand, the offending partner has to learn that the aggrieved partner will sometimes remember
what happened and begin to feel hurt; the former must show the latter empathy when these moments
occur. Emotions such as anger, hurt, and guilt are inevitable, arising from stimuli that are often beyond
either partner's control. Nevertheless, they can manage their individual behavioral responses to these
emotions (even though it will be difficult in the beginning). For instance, the injured partner's first
response to feeling hurt might tend to be a verbal attack on their partner. However, they could decide
to express their hurt assertively instead. If the participating partner were tempted to explode when
their companion asks yet another time for details about the affair, they might instead remind them of
an agreement they made to limit such discussions to their therapy sessions. The couple has to commit
themselves to managing their behavioral responses if they want to reestablish their bond. When they
do not succeed (which might be frequent at first), their “I'm sorry” will need to include an empathetic
understanding of their partner's emotions in order to be effective.

Techniques for cultivating acceptance and tolerance

Integrative behavioral couple therapy techniques for cultivating acceptance and tolerance are help-
ful for defusing polarization and other issues related to infidelities. Jacobson and Christensen (1998)
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
   9
|
mention how, before the development of these techniques, TBCT therapists lacked adequate tools for
managing infidelity beyond the repeated use of problem-­solving and positive behavioral exchange. In
the following paragraphs, the IBCT techniques of empathic joining, unified detachment, and self-­care
will be explored in the context of infidelity cases.

Empathic joining with couples who have suffered an infidelity

Empathic joining seeks to generate an empathetic climate in which the feelings of each partner are
expressed in a deep but gentle way. It focuses on contextualizing each individual's behavior in accord-
ance with their personal history, showing how the latter has resulted in vulnerability and sensitivity
to certain topics. Such context helps partners to understand and accept each other's unique emotional
experiences (Barraca, 2015; Christensen et al., 2014). While IBCT therapists can explain the concepts
of empathic joining, emotional acceptance and their essential components to patients before using the
technique, they more often model them, working to construct a safe place for couples to express and
empathize with each other's emotional experience. When managing infidelity, the therapist will invite
each partner to express their pain and fears without attacking the other. For instance, the injured part-
ner may express feelings regarding the insecurity that the affair has left them with, the paralysis they
feel in their daily living, their deteriorated self-­esteem, the ideas that haunt them concerning the en-
counters between the participating member and third party, the frustration they feel regarding projects
the couple had been working on together, or all of these. This sharing should not be directed towards
making the offending partner feel guilty but rather towards helping them to more deeply understand
the injured partner's feelings. The participating partner may express the discomfort that they have
experienced, how much they have desired a moment of sincere communication with their partner, or
even how they have been wanting the whole situation to just end. They might also express how much
they feel the need to begin a new life together without these past secrets, how much they want the rela-
tionship to function, and how their confession reflects their desire to save the relationship at any cost.
Empathic joining is a distinct form of dialogue that aims to help couples share a wider range of
emotions than they traditionally express. In infidelity cases (and frequently couple therapy in gen-
eral), anger may seem to be the primary emotion, but it often covers up other feelings like sadness,
deception, hopelessness, or anxiety. Empathic joining focuses on expressing not only one's anger, but
these other emotions as well. The therapist helps each partner to reveal their emotional vulnerabilities
while avoiding (when possible) direct attacks on their companion. For instance, a client may want
to say to their partner “you're a good for nothing idiot who's never loved me and who doesn't value
what they have,” which is a direct attack. Speaking from their vulnerability, they might say something
like, “I feel very hurt. I'm angry! I hate this affair! I've given a lot in this relationship but I feel like
I'm not valued.” Direct attacks on a partner tend to destroy dialogue; it is very difficult to empathize
with another's suffering while at the same time defending oneself from their accusations and verbal
assaults (Christensen et al., 2014). Expressing emotional vulnerability, on the other hand, tends to
bring couples together. In empathic joining, all emotions are valid. Anger, sadness, pain and hate
are not to be repressed nor eliminated but explored and validated in connection with each partners'
emotional vulnerabilities and needs. The therapist is a guide who helps manage how these emotions
are expressed, working to avoid escalation and defensiveness, in order to focus on the underlying hurt
and vulnerability.
The therapist must permanently demonstrate a neutral, open, and flexible attitude while guiding
the couple's dialogue. They must also avoid confusion when explaining or demonstrating the concept
of acceptance. Acceptance never means condoning or putting up with a partner's damaging behavior
 |
10       BARRACA and POLANSKI

(in this case the affair) but rather understanding where such behavior comes from, what it means, how
it relates to each partner's personal history, the couple's relationship history, etc. The therapist models
this acceptance by validating each person's emotions. When partners share feelings of pain, fear, and
discomfort, they show their vulnerability and strengthen the intimacy that they are trying so hard to
recover. For couples who have never had emotional intimacy in their relationship, this may be the first
time that they experience it. Paradoxically for these couples, the affair and its treatment may constitute
an opportunity to build a better relationship than what they had before.

Unified detachment with couples who have suffered an infidelity

Unified detachment helps partners to “separate” or “distance themselves” from a problem in order to
face it together as a team. When the couple suffers a negative incident, this technique helps them to
talk about it as if it were something “external” or “outside” of their relationship, as if it were an “it”
(“something that has happened to us”). The goal is to be able to talk about the problem (even if it is
very contentious) in a “cold” or “neutral” way, analyzing it, clarifying it, and studying its sequence of
events (as if one were carrying out a functional analysis; Barraca, 2015). The therapist helps the cou-
ple to maintain an “aseptic” interaction so that they can become aware of the processes and patterns
of interaction that have occurred and are occurring, observing each other's feelings and practicing
patience with one another. These repeated exchanges of information favor the reconstruction of the
couple's bond. Topics to be analyzed may include the meaning that the participating partner associates
with having maintained another relationship, what they were able to express with the other party that
they were unable to express with their partner, what they value now (or have never stopped valuing)
in their relationship with the injured partner, and what they would like to recover in the relationship.
Several IBCT texts (such as Christensen et al., 2014 and Jacobson & Christensen, 1998) suggest a
practical way of carrying out this unified detachment. It involves cowriting a letter ending the relation-
ship and saying goodbye to the third party. By tackling this problem together, the couple acts as a team
confronting the problem of the infidelity. It conceives the therapeutic process as an “us the couple”
versus “the infidelity.” In this letter, the participating partner will make clear to the third party that
(1) they are cutting all ties with them, (2) they will be focusing all of their efforts on recovering the
relationship with the injured partner, and (3) this goal is incompatible with any kind of future contact
between the two of them. The injured partner will participate in writing the letter, recommend content
for it, or both. The couple can send the letter together; if a telephone call is used to break off contact,
the injured partner will be present to listen to everything the participating partner says.

Tolerance strategies

Tolerance strategies help the couple to deal with behavioral responses that are slow to change or
which, in some cases, might never change at all. They can help to diminish emotional reactivity when
confronted with situations likely to elicit such behaviors (Jacobson & Christensen, 1998). In infidelity
cases, for example, the injured partner will likely be irritable and more aggressive at the beginning
of therapy. It can be very useful for them to focus on self-­care since dedicating time to stimulating,
social, and recreational activities can help them to avoid ruminating obsessively about the infidelity.
However, it is not enough to just let the injured partner look for reinforcing activities and then “eve-
rything is fine”; the participating partner must collaborate with this behavior, proposing activities or
helping to facilitate their execution.
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
|
   11

Understanding recovery as a process and rebuilding confidence

Barraca (2017) mentions another IBCT point that can be incorporated into infidelity treatment: un-
derstanding recovery as a process instead of as an identifiable event that occurs at a specific moment
in time and is then complete. The couple will have to renew their commitment to stay together and
overcome the affair each time it comes to mind; at the beginning, this will be quite often. This process
does not mean forgetting what happened but rather contemplating it as something in the past. Couples
must understand that the situation will never be the same as it was. Yet even though it might seem
impossible to conceive at first, if the process includes a general strengthening of the relationship, the
couple might end up with something better than what they had before. While many couples fall apart
because of an affair, others are able to turn the page; this experience can serve to correct prior prob-
lems that were producing polarization, helping to create a relationship based on greater acceptance.
With regards to rebuilding confidence, Christensen et al. (2014) offer some interesting insights.
They mention the dangers of continual investigation and permanent scrutiny of the person who com-
mitted the infidelity. When the injured party dedicates large amounts of time to searching for more
and more proof that the offending party is not continuing to maintain their affair in secret (or a new
relationship with another party) only growing discomfort and dissatisfaction result. Sometimes the
problems that emerge from the aggrieved party's controlling behaviors are worse than the infidelity
itself, causing new polarizations and mutual traps. For example, Anne has confessed her affair to
Peter. After questioning her repeatedly about the details of the sexual encounters that she had with her
coworker, he seems to accept things for a time. Yet he soon begins to doubt again and demands that
Anne give him all the passwords to her telephone, computer, e-mail, and social media accounts. Anne
begins to despair when faced with these demands and openly questions if it has really been worth it
to confess her extramarital relationship to Peter, since for her, emotionally speaking, it meant nothing.
Peter becomes indignant and tries to see if this is true. He begins contacting Anne's coworker and
spying on her when she goes to the office to see if he may find them together. When Anne discovers
this behavior, she begins to think that Peter has become so paranoid that it will be impossible for them
to continue their relationship.
The therapist must guide the couple towards understanding that a relationship in which there is no
confidence and in which fidelity is only maintained through controlling behaviors will not be worth-
while for anyone (Barraca, 2017). As Christensen et al. (2014) point out, it is impossible to disprove
the existence of infidelity. Even when the injured party no longer finds any evidence of unfaithfulness,
they can simply conclude that the participating partner has been more prudent or clever in hiding their
activity this time (e.g., erasing e-mails, messages, and phone calls; enlisting the help of a friend to
cover for them; finding a better alibi, etc.). While the injured party could dedicate their time to dis-
covering what the participating partner does when they are not together, a more fruitful alternative is
to value what the offending partner does when the two of them are together: for instance, how they
involve themselves more in the relationship, the plans they make together, their understanding of the
aggrieved partner's suffering, and the excitement they show sharing daily life together. The injured
partner can also appreciate the offending partner's confession of the infidelity, their commitment to
therapy, their suffering, and their desire and effort to regain the aggrieved partner's confidence as clues
to the participating partner's intentions. Perhaps the most effective way of countering ongoing suspi-
cions and restoring trust is assuring openness and transparency within the relationship. Investigations
and interrogations begin to lose their value when the participating partner frequently communicates
their actions and feelings to their loved one and when both maintain open discussions in which they
feel safe to express themselves honestly and fully. Even though the partner who committed the infi-
delity is the one who has to take the first step, the healing process requires effort from both parties
 |
12       BARRACA and POLANSKI

working together in unified detachment. In cases where the injured party continues with anxiety or
obsessive rumination regarding the infidelity, IBCT can be complemented with a personal process
based on other contextual therapy techniques related to acceptance and mindfulness. The participating
partner will involve themselves in such a way that it remains clear that the problem is not individual
but to be faced as a couple.

D I SC U S S IO N

There are very few empirical investigations about the effectiveness of couple therapy in cases of
infidelity. Most research tends towards practice-­based evidence or individual case studies. The little
empirical data available suggest that both therapies focused specifically on infidelity and those with
a broader focus can benefit couples who have suffered an affair. The revelation of a current infidelity
at the beginning of the therapy process is almost always necessary for the recovery of the intimate
relationship beset by one.
While Gordon et al. (2004) have developed and published a rather detailed schema for infidelity-­
focused therapy, concrete examples of how to apply IBCT techniques to this issue are few and far
between. Atkins et al. (2005) and Marín et al.'s (2014) empirical studies, for example, do not describe
how TBCT or IBCT techniques were applied to couples suffering from an affair. Christensen et al.
(2014, 2020) and Jacobson and Christensen (1998) have provided a few more details in their books on
IBCT; however, this issue is not the main focus of these works. This article combines these authors'
specific suggestions for using IBCT in infidelity cases with concrete examples of how to best apply
empathic joining, unified detachment and a specific tolerance strategy with couples suffering from
this issue. It also mentions some of the risks that must be taken into account and mitigated when em-
ploying IBCT strategies. Special care has been taken to show how DEEP analysis can be used to shed
light on the context of an affair and how the polarization process tends to operate and interfere with
efforts to heal infidelity in therapy.
Integrative behavioral couple therapy borrows important ideas from other close relationship re-
search (Christensen & Doss, 2017), but it also has significant differences from previous models for
treating infidelity. Like practice-­based approaches (see Dupree et al., 2007), IBCT explores the mean-
ing of infidelity behaviors in connection with each partner's life history and in the context of the rela-
tionship as a whole. It also identifies conflict patterns and looks to create new behaviors and forms of
communication among partners. However, IBCT's DEEP model and its focus on polarization and the
mutual trap seem to explain conflict cycles better than previous theories. IBCT also focuses less on
the attenuation of partners' emotional crises than other models, instead emphasizing acceptance and
functional analysis of these crises. Like other models, IBCT includes strategies dedicated to behav-
ioral change; however, its primary focus is strengthening each partner's acceptance and validation of
the other's emotional experiences (empathic joining) and tolerance of differences (which are viewed
as natural and even good and not as incompatibilities). Not all differences need to be resolved, some
just accepted or tolerated (they might even turn out be positive upon further examination). Infidelity
is characterized as the couple's problem, one they must face together in unified detachment, and not
just as one partner's behavior that needs to be changed. While other therapies often focus on rules that
must be followed to improve the relationship, IBCT is more contingency focused; it identifies each
problematic behavior's function and the consequences that reinforce it as the basis for guiding change.
Any rules will be created by the couple themselves (Barraca, 2015). Most importantly, it is an empiri-
cally tested approach with a particular mix of components that has been shown to work (Atkins et al.,
2005; Marín et al., 2014).
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
|
   13

Taking into account both Atkins et al.'s (2005) and Gordon et al. (2004) studies, Baucom et al.
(2006) suggest the following: (1) the TBCT/IBCT approach may provide more benefits for infidel-
ity couples seeking help for widespread relationship problems and in which the injured partner has
lower levels of initial emotional distress, and (2) an infidelity-­specific approach may provide more
benefits for couples whose most salient current problem is the infidelity and in which the injured
party has a high level of trauma and depression-­related symptoms. Nevertheless, they recognize that
the amount of empirical data is small, making it premature to recommend differential treatment. The
authors of this article hope that their contributions may bridge the gap between these two possible
treatment scenarios, showing how general IBCT methods can be put to good use in cases where
couples need a more infidelity-­specific approach without ignoring the larger context that may have
contributed to the couple's relationship dissatisfaction. Both facets need to be taken into account
since issues that have affected the couple in the past such as differences regarding childrearing, the
nature of the relationship with each partner's family of origin, and the level of intensity, frequency,
and desired forms of demonstrating affect may have also contributed to the infidelity.
A specific area in which IBCT may still benefit from Gordon et al.'s (2004) infidelity-­specific
therapy schema relates to the study and use of forgiveness within an IBCT framework. Cordova et al.
(2006) have proposed that an operational analysis of forgiveness “will help to strengthen behavioral
couple therapy by creating a direct module to handle some of the most entrenched situations, those
commonly referred to as betrayal” (p. 192). This idea has been more recently seconded by Toney and
Hayes (2017) who have published their analysis of the operating contingencies that affect interper-
sonal conflict and provided suggestions on how behavioral principles might be applied to more easily
achieve conflict resolution and prevent future incidents. While neither of these articles is an empiri-
cal study, Gordon et al.'s (2004) intervention has demonstrated that forgiveness training may have a
positive effect on recovery from infidelity, especially for the injured partner. The integration of these
behavioral analyses of forgiveness into the IBCT model and their empirical testing could contribute to
future advances in infidelity treatment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
No thanks or acknowledgements are requested.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors of this article declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

ORCID
Jorge Barraca  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2353-1926
Thomas X. Polanski  https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3389-4173

R E F E R E NC E S
Abrahamson, I., Hussain, R., Khan, A., & Schofield, M. J. (2012). What helps couples rebuild their relationship after
infidelity? Journal of Family Issues, 33, 1494–­1519. https://doi.org/10.1177/01925​13X11​424257
Adamopoulou, E. (2013). New facts on infidelity. Economics Letters, 121, 458–­462. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econl​
et.2013.09.025.
Allen, E. S., Atkins, D. C., Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., & Glass, S. P. (2005). Intrapersonal, inter-
personal, and contextual factors in engaging in and responding to extramarital involvement. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 12, 101–­130. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpi014
Amato, P. (2010). Research on divorce: Continuing trends and new developments. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72,
650–­666. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-­3737.2010.00723.x
 |
14       BARRACA and POLANSKI

American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. (2016, July). Infidelity. https://www.aamft.org/Consu​mer_
Updat​es/Infid​elity.aspx
Atkins, D. C., Eldridge, K. A., Baucom, D. H., & Christensen, A. (2005). Infidelity and behavioral couple therapy:
Optimism in the face of betrayal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 73, 144–­150. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-­006X.73.1.144
Atkins, D. C., Marín, R. A., Lo, T. T. Y., 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0018789
Barraca, J. (2015). Terapia integral de pareja. Síntesis.
Barraca, J. (2017). La terapia integral de pareja (IBCT) en los problemas de infidelidad. Conference given during the I
Jornada de INCOSAME, Ciudad de México, México (unpublished manuscript).
Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., & Gordon, K. C. (2009). Helping couples get past the affair: A clinician's guide. Guilford
Press.
Baucom, D. H., Snyder, D. K., Gordon, K. C., Atkins, D. C., & Christensen, A. (2006). Treating affair couples: Clinical
considerations and initial findings. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 20, 375–­392. https://doi.org/10.1891/
jcpiq​-­v20i4​a004
Betzig, L. (1989). Causes of conjugal dissolution: A cross-­cultural study. Current Anthropology, 30, 654–­676. https://
doi.org/10.1086/203798
Blow, A. J., & Hartnett, K. (2005). Infidelity in committed relationships II: A substantive review. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 31, 217–­233. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-­0606.2005.tb015​56.x
Brown, E. M. (2001). Patterns of infidelity and their treatment (2nd ed.). Brunner/Mazel.
Buss, D. M., & Duntley, J. D. (2011). The evolution of intimate partner violence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16,
411–­419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2011.04.015
Cano, A., & O'Leary, K. D. (2000). Infidelity and separations precipitate major depressive episodes and symptoms
of nonspecific depression and anxiety. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, 774–­781. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-­006X.68.5.774
Charny, I., & Parnass, S. (1995). The impact of extramarital relationships on the continuation of marriages. Journal of
Sex & Marital Therapy, 21, 100–­115. https://doi.org/10.1080/00926​23950​8404389
Choi, K. H., Catania, J. A., & Dolcini, M. M. (1994). Extramarital sex and HIV risk behavior among US adults:
Results from the national AIDS behavioral survey. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 2003–­2007. https://doi.
org/10.2105/AJPH.84.12.2003
Christensen, A., & Doss, B. D. (2017). Integrative behavioral couple therapy. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 111–­
114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.04.022
Christensen, A., Doss, B. D., & Jacobson, N. S. (2014). Reconcilable differences, second edition: Rebuild your relation-
ship by rediscovering the partner you love without losing yourself. Guilford Press.
Christensen, A., Doss, B. D., & Jacobson, N. S. (2020). Integrative behavioral couple therapy: A therapist's guide to
creating acceptance and change. W. W. Norton & Company.
Conley, T. D., Moors, A. C., Ziegler, A., & Karathanasis, C. (2012). Unfaithful individuals are less likely to prac-
tice safer sex than openly nonmonogamous individuals. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1559–­1565. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1743-­6109.2012.02712.x
Cordova, J., Cautilli, J., Simon, C., & Sabag, R. A. (2006). Behavior analysis of forgiveness in couples therapy.
International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 2, 192–­214. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100776
Cravens, J. D., Leckie, K. R., & Whiting, J. B. (2013). Facebook infidelity: When poking becomes problematic.
Contemporary Family Therapy, 35, 74–­90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1059​1-­012-­9231-­5
DiBlasio, F. (2000). Decision-­based forgiveness treatment in cases of marital infidelity. Psychotherapy: Theory,
Research, Practice, Training, 37, 149–­158. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0087834
Dupree, W. J., White, M. B., Olsen, C. S., & LaFleur, C. T. (2007). Infidelity treatment patterns: A practice-­based
evidence approach. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 327–­341. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926​18060​
0969900
Fife, S. T., Weeks, G. R., & Gambescia, N. (2008). Treating infidelity: An integrative approach. The Family Journal:
Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 316–­323. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664​80708​323205
Fincham, F. D., & May, R. W. (2017). Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology, 13, 70–­74.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008
JOURNAL OF MARITAL AND FAMILY THERAPY   
   15
|
Fisher, A. D., Bandini, E., Rastrelli, G., Corona, G., Monami, M., Mannucci, E., & Maggi, M. (2012). Sexual and
cardiovascular correlates of male unfaithfulness. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 9, 1508–­ 1518. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1743-­6109.2012.02722.x
Frederick, D. A., Forbes, G. B., Grigorian, K. E., & Jarcho, J. M. (2007). The UCLA Body Project I: Gender and ethnic
differences in self objectification and body satisfaction among undergraduates. Sex Roles, 57, 317–­327. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1119​9-­007-­9251-­z
Glass, S. P., & Wright, T. L. (1992). Justifications for extramarital relationships: The association between atti-
tudes, behaviors, and gender. The Journal of Sex Research, 29, 361–­387. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224​49920​
9551654
Gordon, K. C., Baucom, D. H., & Snyder, D. K. (2004). An integrative intervention for promoting recovery from extra-
marital affairs. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 30, 213–­231. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-­0606.2004.
tb012​35.x
Halford, W., & Markman, H. (1997). Clinical handbook of marriage and couples intervention. John Wiley & Sons.
Hall, J. H., Fals-­Stewart, W., & Fincham, F. D. (2008). Risky sexual behavior among married alcoholic men. Journal of
Family Psychology, 22, 287–­292. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-­3200.22.2.287
Hansen, G. L. (1987). Extradyadic relations during courtship. Journal of Sex Research, 23, 382–­390. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00224​49870​9551376
Heintzelman, A., Murdock, N., Krycak, R., & Seay, L. (2014). Recovery from infidelity: Differentiation of self, trauma,
forgiveness, and posttraumatic growth among couples in continuing relationships. Couple and Family Psychology:
Research and Practice, 3, 13–­29. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp00​00016
Jacobson, N. S., & Christensen, A. (1998). Acceptance and change in couple therapy: A therapist's guide to transform-
ing relationships. W. W. Norton.
Johnson, S. (2005). Broken bonds: An emotionally focused approach to infidelity. Journal of Couple & Relationship
Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions, 4(2–­3), 17–­29. https://doi.org/10.1300/J398v​
04n02_03
Lalasz, C. B., & Weigel, D. J. (2011). Understanding the relationship between gender and extradyadic relations:
The mediating role of sensation seeking on intentions to engage in sexual infidelity. Personality and Individual
Differences, 50, 1079–­1083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.01.029
Laumann, E. O., Gagnon, J. H., Michael, R. T., & Michaels, S. (1994). The social organization of sexuality: Sexual
practices in the United States. University of Chicago.
Lee, B. H., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (2019). Walk the line: How successful are efforts to maintain monogamy in intimate
relationships? Archives of Sexual Behavior, 48, 1735–­1748. https://doi.org/10.1007/s1050​8-­018-­1376-­3
Lusterman, D. (1998). Infidelity: A survival guide. New Harbinger Publications.
Marín, R. A., Christensen, A., & Atkins, D. C. (2014). Infidelity and behavioral couple therapy: Relationship out-
comes over 5 years following therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3, 1–­12. https://doi.
org/10.1037/cfp00​00012
Mark, K. P., Janssen, E., & Milhausen, R. R. (2011). Infidelity in heterosexual couples: Demographic, interpersonal,
and personality-­related predictors of extradyadic sex. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40, 971–­982. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s1050​8-­011-­9771-­z
Markman, H. J. (2005). The prevention of extramarital involvement: Steps towards “affair proofing” marriage. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 12, 134–­138. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy.bpi016
McAnulty, R. D., & Brineman, J. M. (2007). Infidelity in dating relationships. Annual Review of Sex Research, 18, 94–­
114. https://doi.org/10.1080/10532​528.2007.10559848
Negash, S., Carlson, S. H., & Linder, J. N. (2018). Emotionally focused therapy and eye movement desensitization and
reprocessing: An integrated treatment to heal the trauma of infidelity. Couple and Family Psychology: Research
and Practice, 7, 143–­157. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp00​00107
Olson, M. M., Russell, C. S., Higgins-­Kessler, M., & Miller, R. B. (2002). Emotional processes following disclo-
sure of an extramarital affair. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 28, 423–­434. https://doi.org/10.1111/
j.1752-­0606.2002.tb003​67.x
Schwyzer, H. (2013). How marital infidelity became America's last sexual taboo. The Atlantic. https://www.theat​lantic.
com/sexes/​archi​ve/2013/05/how-­marit​al-­infid​elity​-­becam​e-­ameri​cas-­last-­sexua​l-­taboo/​27634​1/
Shakelford, T. K., Buss, D. M., & Weekes-­Shakelford, V. A. (2003). Wife killings committed in the context of a lover's
triangle. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 25, 137–­143. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532​4834B​ASP25​02_4
 |
16       BARRACA and POLANSKI

Shrout, M. R., & Weigel, D. J. (2017). Infidelity's aftermath: Appraisals, mental health, and health-­compromising be-
haviors following a partner's infidelity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 35, 1067–­1091. https://doi.
org/10.1177/02654​07517​704091
Snyder, D. K., Baucom, D. H., & Gordon, K. C. (2008). An integrative approach to treating infidelity. The Family
Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 16, 300–­307. https://doi.org/10.1177/10664​80708​
323200
Spring, J. A. (1996). After the affair: Healing the pain and rebuilding the trust when a partner has been unfaithful.
Harper Collins.
Thompson, A. E., & O'Sullivan, L. F. (2016). Drawing the line: The development of a comprehensive assessment of
infidelity judgments. Journal of Sex Research, 53, 910–­926. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224​499.2015.1062840
Toney, D. E., & Hayes, L. J. (2017). A behavior analysis of apologies, forgiveness, and interpersonal conflict. Behavior
and Social Issues, 26, 128–­155. https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v.26i0.7425
Treas, J., & Giesen, D. (2000). Sexual infidelity among married and cohabiting Americans. Journal of Marriage and
Family, 62, 48–­60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-­3737.2000.00048.x
Whisman, M. A., Gordon, K. C., & Chatav, Y. (2007). Predicting sexual infidelity in a population-­based sample of mar-
ried individuals. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 320–­324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-­3200.21.2.320
Whisman, M. A., & Snyder, D. K. (2007). Sexual infidelity in a national survey of American women: Difference in
prevalence and correlates as a function of method of assessment. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 147–­154.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0893-­3200.21.2.147
Wiederman, M. W. (1997). Extramarital sex: Prevalence and correlates in a national survey. Journal of Sex Research,
34, 167–­174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224​49970​9551881

How to cite this article: Barraca J, Polanski TX. Infidelity treatment from an integrative
behavioral couple therapy perspective: Explanatory model and intervention strategies. J
Marital Fam Ther. 2021;00:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12483