Introduction

Infidelity is one of the most significant relational ruptures couples can face, with lasting emotional, relational, and systemic consequences (Rokach & Chan, 2023). Recent research suggests infidelity affects between 20 and 50% of committed relationships across sexual, emotional, mixed, and online contexts (Wdowiak et al., 2024), and it remains a central reason couples end their marriages (Rokach & Chan, 2023). Although many couples terminate their relationship following infidelity, others seek to remain together and begin a non-linear process of healing shaped by multiple relational and individual factors (Author, 2024; Mitchell et al., 2026). As couples work to recover and heal from infidelity, both individual and relational resilience become essential. Despite the prevalence of infidelity and its profound impact on relationships, existing literature on resilience has primarily emphasized individual adaptation (e.g., coping strategies, self-regulation, or personal growth) rather than dyadic processes (Afifi, 2018; Olekalns et al., 2020). Relatively little empirical information is known about how resilience functions at the couple level, particularly how partners work together to rebuild trust, reestablish safety, and reorganize their relationship following rupture. This presents a critical gap in both theoretical frameworks of resilience and clinical interventions designed to support couples’ resilience in the process of healing from infidelity.

The operational definition of resilience is a subject of continued debate, with a growing body of research examining resilience from a multidisciplinary perspective and identifying the factors that contribute to it across various settings (Allen et al., 2010; Herrman et al., 2011). Resilience is generally understood as the capacity to recover and adapt when confronted with challenges, allowing individuals to preserve or restore well-being despite adversity (Herrman et al., 2011; U.S. Department of State, 2018). However, the processes that facilitate relational resilience may be distinct from those that sustain individual well-being. At the family and couple level, resilience is understood as co-constructed and interactional, shaped by communication, shared meaning making, and partner responsiveness (Afifi et al., 2025). Furthermore, a growing body of research highlights that resilience in couples includes engaging in intentional, mutually related, collaborative processes (Afifi, 2018; Kumar et al., 2023; Olekalns et al., 2020), such as partners openly communicating stress, providing supportive responses, and engaging in dyadic coping and joint problem-solving to navigate challenges together. Understanding these processes is particularly important for clinicians, as couples frequently seek therapy following infidelity and desire clear frameworks for repair (Author, 2007). Identifying the factors associated with relational resilience can provide clinicians with empirically based guidance and expand theoretical models of resilience to include relational factors.

The purpose of this study was to examine how resilience operates in couples who have experienced infidelity. To accomplish this, we used deductive qualitative analysis (DQA) to evaluate whether sensitizing constructs of resilience identified in prior literature are present in the process of couple healing, while also allowing for the emergence of new constructs related to the context of infidelity. By grounding the analysis in participants’ narratives, this study aims to extend empirical and theoretical understandings of resilience while providing clinically relevant insights for supporting relational repair following infidelity.

Literature Review

Resilience has been widely examined across diverse settings, with research on why some individuals or families are resilient providing insight into how people adapt in the face of adversity. Research on resilience consistently emphasizes that it is not a static trait, but a dynamic process influenced by context, resources, and relational supports. For example, recent work in autism research has moved beyond deficit-oriented models by proposing a resilience framework to better illustrate adaptive developmental pathways and heterogeneity among high-risk infants (Stallworthy & Masten, 2023). Workplace research further illustrates this dynamic nature, showing that relational resilience depends on temporal factors such as the timing of emotional expression, relational maturity, and the process of joint sensemaking, which influence how relational fractures emerge and are repaired (Olekalns et al., 2020). Similarly, research on college students found that emotional resilience significantly moderated the impact of negative life events on mood, supporting the idea that resilience can fluctuate with circumstances and highlighting its critical role in maintaining emotional well-being (Li et al., 2020). Resilience has also been examined across diverse contexts, including trauma, chronic illness, major life transitions, military veterans, and family stressors (Brown et al., 2022; Cole et al., 2024; Ferguson & Walker, 2014; Kumar et al., 2024). Advancing literature increasingly conceptualizes resilience as an ongoing, dynamic process shaped by individual capacities, relational supports, and broader environmental resources (Herrman et al., 2011; Olekalns et al., 2020).

Research on childhood exposure to trauma, including war, natural disasters, pandemic, and abuse, underscores the central role of relational support and meaning making in adaptive recovery (Bogar & Hulse-Killacky, 2006; Dixit & Sahu, 2022; McFarlane & Van Hooff, 2009; Masten & Narayan, 2012; Wickrama & Kaspar, 2007). For example, children exposed to large-scale crises demonstrated greater psychological stability when supported by caregivers and peers, emphasizing how resilience is embedded within relational and contextual systems (Masten, 2021). Similarly, studies of childhood sexual abuse survivors conceptualize resilience as a lifelong process supported by coping strategies, spirituality, and positive relational environments (Francis-Laughlin & Rusca, 2020).

Research on major life transitions such as pregnancy, divorce, and aging further illustrates that resilience is reinforced through relational satisfaction, self-compassion, social support, and adaptive communication (Greeff & Van Der Merwe, 2004; Kumar et al., 2023; Resnick, 2008). For instance, post-divorce family resilience is associated with intra-family support, open communication, and religious or community resources, highlighting the systemic nature of adaptation (Frisby et al., 2012; Gurgan, 2020). Studies of military families similarly demonstrate that resilience is sustained through communal coping, meaning making, and intentional communication in the face of chronic relational stressors (Afifi, 2018; Cole et al., 2024). Across these diverse contexts, resilience consistently emerges as an ongoing, relationally embedded, multifaceted process shaped by social connection, adaptive coping, collaborative meaning making, and environmental resources, rather than solely individual traits (Herrman et al., 2011; Olekalns et al., 2020). Resilience has also been conceptualized within family systems through the work of Froma Walsh, who describes family resilience as a dynamic process that enables families to adapt to and recover from adversity (Walsh, 2003). This framework emphasizes key processes such as meaning making, flexibility, connectedness, and clear communication, highlighting that resilience is shaped through relational interactions rather than existing solely within the individual (Walsh, 2016). From this perspective, resilience is embedded within broader relational and contextual systems.

The Theory of Resilience and Relational Load (TRRL) provides a systemic framework for understanding resilience within relational contexts (Afifi et al., 2016). A core aspect of TRRL is the premise that resilience emerges from ongoing relational investment, the development of communal “we-ness,” and consistent communication maintenance, all of which reduce relational strain. The concept of relational load captures the cumulative stress that chronic challenges place on couple and family systems, underscoring the importance of proactive relational processes for sustaining well-being. The TRRL integrates communication, relational understanding, and physiological stress processes to explain why some relationships thrive despite adversity. TRRL is relevant to couples coping with infidelity, as it emphasizes communal coping, relational investment, and shared meaning making as mechanisms that reduce strain and support recovery.

Infidelity and Resilience

Infidelity represents a distinctive relational crisis in which resilience must be navigated at both individual and dyadic levels. The aggrieved partner often experiences betrayal-related trauma symptoms, including heightened emotions and stress, depression, anxiety, insecurity, loss of trust, and posttraumatic stress responses following the infidelity (Anderson, 2025; Author et al., 2022; Author et al., 2023; Lonergan et al., 2021). Recovery often requires a balance of personal coping and joint meaning-making, with social support, spirituality, and therapy being important resources. Individual-level processes such as self-compassion and self-forgiveness play a critical role in resilience after infidelity (Cornish et al., 2020). At the relational and systemic level, Olson et al. (2002) and Vossler and Moller (2020) identified coping strategies centered on emotional processing and psychological resilience following infidelity disclosure, with social support and meaning making emerging as central to reducing distress and sustaining recovery. Couples frequently utilize emotion-focused coping and draw meaning from children or personal growth as part of the healing process. A qualitative study examining both injured and involved partners highlights the complex and relational nature of affair recovery, emphasizing the importance of communication, rebuilding trust and safety, forgiveness, and therapeutic support in facilitating healing (Mitchell et al., 2022).

To summarize the literature reviewed above, resilience is consistently characterized as a dynamic, context-dependent process shaped by individual strengths, relational supports, and meaning-making practices. Whether in response to trauma, illness, divorce, or relational betrayal, resilience is a multifaceted process that is fostered through social connection, coping strategies, and adaptive communication that help individuals and families sustain well-being. Although there is limited research directly focused on the role of resilience in healing from infidelity, existing literature suggests that resilience in the context of relational betrayal involves both individual and relational processes. However, the ways in which resilience manifests within the couple relationship remain underexplored. This gap highlights the need to better understand how resilience is enacted in couples navigating infidelity. The purpose of the present study was to examine the key factors of resilience in couples healing from infidelity.

Method

Sample

The current study used a sample of 31 couples who were in heterosexual relationships with a romantic partner (see Table 1). Inclusion criteria were intentionally broad with respect to the type of infidelity, allowing participants to self-identify whether they had experienced infidelity rather than restricting eligibility to predefined categories. This approach supported a balance between participant homogeneity and heterogeneity, enabling meaningful comparisons across couples while also allowing for an examination of differences in their experiences. The resulting diversity of the sample enabled examination of both similarities and variations in resilience and healing across couples. The non-straying partner (NSP) refers to the partner who did not engage in infidelity, whereas the straying partner (SP) refers to the partner who engaged in infidelity. We recognize that terms such as ‘straying’ and ‘non-straying’ may carry unintended or pathologizing connotations; however, these labels were used to differentiate partner roles in relation to the infidelity event and to maintain consistency with participants’ descriptions of their experiences. This distinction was particularly important given that participants frequently described infidelity as a relational injury, in which a singular assignment of blame was often experienced as unhelpful, instead emphasizing accountability and transparency.

Within this sample, 25 couples were married, 4 were dating in committed relationships, one couple was engaged, and one couple identified as ambiguously dating. Of the 31 couples, 25 had the male partner as SP, 3 had the female partner as the SP, and for 3 of the couples both partners engaged in infidelity. Types of infidelity included emotional (in person and online), sexual, purchasing sex from a sex worker, digital contact with sex workers without any action, sexting, and pornography use. At the time of data collection, couples had been together from 5 to 51 years, with an average of 28 years. Participants reported that the first identified infidelity occurred an average of 7.0 years into the relationship (SD = 6.2), with durations ranging from 2 days to 27 years (n = 28). Most participants were married at the time of data collection (80.6%, n = 25). In most cases, the straying partner was male (80.6%, n = 25), while female-only infidelity and mutual infidelity were less common (9.7% each, n = 3). Among participants who reported race or ethnicity (n = 53), most identified as White (69.8%, n = 37), followed by Hispanic/Latinx participants (17.0%, n = 9). Most participants who reported a religious background identified as Christian (68.5%, n = 37).

Physical sexual infidelity was the most commonly reported form of infidelity (74.2%, n = 23), followed by emotional infidelity (54.8%, n = 17). Participants also reported pornography-related infidelity (25.8%, n = 8) and online or internet-based infidelity (22.6%, n = 7). Nearly two-thirds of participants reported experiencing multiple forms of infidelity (64.5%, n = 20). Most participants reported attending some form of therapy following the infidelity (80.6%, n = 25). Among therapy participants, couples therapy was the most common form of treatment (96.0%, n = 24), followed by individual therapy (76.0%, n = 19) and group therapy (36.0%, n = 9). These categories were not mutually exclusive, and some participants reported attending multiple forms of therapy, including couples, individual, and group therapy. Among those who attended couples therapy, 75.0% (n = 18) also participated in individual therapy. Table 1 presents more details about the sample.

Data

This study involved secondary analysis of qualitative data (Creswell & Poth, 2016) drawn from an ongoing research project examining couples’ experiences of healing from infidelity. The data was originally gathered by one of the study’s authors after receiving institutional review board approval (IRB2019-290). Participants were recruited through flyers placed at a university family therapy clinic, referrals from practicing clinicians, social media, and the university’s web-based bulletin board. The inclusion criteria were that participants needed to be at least 18 years old, in a committed romantic relationship for at least 3 months, experienced infidelity at some point during their relationship, and experienced some healing from the infidelity. We did not specify the type of infidelity to be included in the study, The interviews were conducted by researchers in person and via Zoom (Version: 7.0.0.2956) and lasted approximately 45–60 min. Partners were interviewed together and were asked a series of semi-structured questions about their experiences with healing from infidelity. Interviews included questions such as: What was the healing process like for you? What were significant moments that helped with healing? How was trust affected, if at all, and what helped rebuild trust? Was forgiveness an important part of the healing process, if so, how? Were there any setbacks or negative experiences during the healing process? Responses described individual and relational experiences related to healing from infidelity and the role of the NSP and SP. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and de-identified for analysis.

Deductive Qualitative Analysis

We utilized deductive qualitative analysis (DQA) procedures, as described by Author (2024), to guide our study of resilience in the process of healing from infidelity. DQA was an appropriate analytic strategy because it allows researchers to apply existing theoretical constructs to qualitative data to test, refine, or expand current conceptual models (Author, 2024; Gilgun, 2019). DQA utilizes sensitizing constructs from existing theory, while also allowing for the identification of new processes through inductive analysis that extend existing understanding of human phenomenon (e.g., how couples navigate and recover from the unique challenges of infidelity). For the present study, the research team applied a resilience framework to analyze couples’ experience of healing from infidelity. Although the original interviews were not conducted specifically with resilience as the guiding focus, they contained rich descriptions of couples’ recovery processes following infidelity. The research question, What are the key factors of resilience in couples healing from infidelity?, guided the analysis.

Through an extensive literature review, we first identified key constructs of resilience: social support (e.g., religion, family, spirituality, friends, community; Afifi, 2018; Kumar et al., 2023), meaning making (e.g., a perspective of change, flexibility, and growth; Afifi et al., 2016; Joseph & Linley, 2006), individual healing (e.g., self-discovery, self-compassion, self-forgiveness, self-care, self-regard, self-reliance, self-advocacy; Herrman et al., 2011; Schetter & Dolbier), open communication (e.g., communicating honestly, intentionally, vulnerably, and consistently; Afifi et al., 2016; Buzzanell & Houston, 2018), and re-invented normalcy (e.g., new routines, reframing situations, finding balance; Herrman et al., 2011; Olekalns et al., 2019). These constructs served as the initial framework for analysis. We applied these sensitizing constructs deductively during initial data analysis, coding for evidence of the sensitizing constructs. At the same time, we coded inductively for themes not captured by the original framework of resilience, allowing for the emergence of new concepts directly from the data (Author, 2024). Inductive analysis facilitated potential refinement or expansion of resilience constructs pertaining to the process of healing from infidelity.

DQA also involves negative case analysis in which researchers search for and analyze data that contradicts the initial sensitizing constructs or provides novel information regarding the phenomenon of interest. Negative case analysis enhances the quality and depth of the analysis by helping prevent confirmation bias and premature conclusions, while also enabling researchers to understand important nuances or refinements to the initial conceptual framework (Author, 2024). Focused coding and theorizing involved examining prominent themes within and across participant data (Charmaz, 2025; Author, 2024). Through this iterative approach, we were able to refine sensitizing constructs and identify themes that were unique to or expanded upon existing resilience theory as related to couples recovering from infidelity. Regardless of whether prominent themes were derived deductively or inductively, they had to be strongly supported by the data to warrant inclusion in the results.

Reflexivity and Trustworthiness

We approached the study from a constructivist perspective, which includes the assumptions that knowledge is constructed through interaction between the researchers and the participants/data and that researchers influence the research process (Charmaz, 2025). An essential aspect of constructivist qualitative research is reflexivity, or the ongoing recognition of how researchers’ positionalities, values, and experiences shape the research process (Creswell & Poth, 2016). The research team included a faculty member, two doctoral students, one master’s student, and one bachelor’s student, representing a range of experience and expertise in research, clinical practice, and working with couples. Although levels of clinical experience with infidelity varied across team members, all had foundational training in relational processes through their academic coursework. To engage in reflexivity, all team members were trained in writing analytic and reflexive memos prior to beginning data analysis. The use of analytic and reflexive memos increased our self-awareness and helped to make our reasoning transparent, identify patterns or biases, and support the development of deeper insights from the data (Lempert et al., 2007). Team members met biweekly to review coding and memos, discuss interpretations, and engage in reflexive discussions to identify and monitor potential assumptions regarding the causes and meaning of infidelity, ensuring that interpretations remained grounded in participant experiences (Author, 2024). These practices allowed us to remain attentive to how our diverse perspectives informed coding and interpretation, fostering a more nuanced and transparent analytic process (Charmaz, 2025).

Analysis was facilitated by ATLAS.ti (23.2.1). Transcripts were randomly assigned to four team members over a three-month period, with the team utilizing individual, pair, and group coding processes to ensure consistency in applying sensitizing constructs. The coding team included a designated leader who monitored progress, facilitated collaborative meetings, and supported team cohesion by checking in with members and assisting when needed (Beresford et al., 2022). Coding discrepancies were addressed through iterative, collaborative discussion, with team members comparing interpretations and returning to the research question, data, and sensitizing constructs to reach consensus. During the analysis, researchers coded data and entered analytic and reflexive memos into ATLAS.ti to enhance the transparency and rigor of our analytic process (Friese, 2012). In addition to team meetings, a peer debriefer who originally collected the data, met with the coders monthly to review emerging findings and provide external feedback but did not participate in coding (Dahal, 2025).

Results

Open Communication

Open communication was foundational to couples’ resilient responses to infidelity, requiring honest disclosure of the infidelity as a basis for rebuilding trust and strengthening communication. For some couples, the NSP preferred gradual disclosure to allow time for adjustment and building professional support, while still having their questions answered as needed, whereas others preferred immediate full disclosure. NSP 13 said:

First, we established, ‘This is what happened; and get all the details. Then talk about, ‘Honestly this is the way I felt about how things unfolded.’ After establishing how we felt, we said, ‘Going forward, what are we going to do next? What are we going to do to keep this from happening again? What accountability measures can we implement?’ It was a three-step process.

Our analysis revealed a difference between disclosure and discovery of infidelity, with disclosure fostering greater respect and a stronger foundation to work through infidelity. The NSPs also described a need to fully understand the extent of the infidelity and exactly what happened. For their partners, it was a common misconception that disclosing details of the infidelity would worsen their relationship. They also reported a deep sense of guilt, shame, and fear their partner would leave.

In relation to open communication, couples spoke specifically about the importance of transparency. Although it was perceived as a risk to disclose details of the infidelity and answer their partner’s questions, the NSPs described this total transparency as a necessary step to continue the relationship and improve communication. With transparency, couples were able to establish boundaries upon which trust could be rebuilt. NSP 12 said, “We set up safeguards that allowed me to know where he was and what he was doing. He was good about never feeling babysat. He just went, “Yeah. I want to make sure you know you’re safe with me.’”.

Couples consistently spoke on the need for specific actions to re-establish trust, such as sharing locations, photo proof of whereabouts, bank information, face ID permission, having phone check ins, and utilizing polygraph tests. Some NSP’s reported difficulty in speaking up for the need for transparency. They described balancing the need to navigate pain independently while obtaining proof of their partner’s day-to-day activities, finding it challenging but necessary to speak up and for such reassurance. NSP 20 said, “The full transparency of [SP] giving me access to their phone and computer, sharing their location and knowing if I need a polygraph, I can ask for one, have been some of the biggest things to rebuild trust.” Their partner, SP 20 said, “I was positive it was going to end if I told NSP everything. My sponsor told me I had no control over my marriage surviving, to let go and stop trying to control that.” Although there were fears on both sides pertaining to open communication and transparency, couples reported both were important factors in developing resilience, providing an outlet for both partners to express insecurity, shame, and doubt.

While couples emphasized communication as part of an ongoing process, accountability also emerged as an important sub-theme within open communication. Primarily, the SP’s reported a need to respond to the NSP’s requests for proof, information, or sharing their insecurity and feelings of betrayal with acceptance and accountability, rather than frustration, self-protection, or defensiveness. Many partners described this ability to share their emotions and to be received by their partner with empathy as a catalyst for resilience. For example, NSP 29 said, “He was very patient through these emotions, not telling me I’m overreacting. Taking accountability, not attacking me, just really owning his stuff.” Similarly, NSP 27 described, “He fully owned. He didn’t get defensive. He was fully present. It’s been consistent actions over time.” Her partner, SP 27, described how this accountability developed through disclosure and recognizing his own minimization:

I wanted her to know me. I wanted to quit hiding. A lot of it was recognizing I was lying to myself about issues and challenges. When I wrote my full disclosure letter, it opened my eyes to how much I had done. Not having it written down allowed me to minimize it.

Full disclosure (for some couples) and the rebuilding of trust through accountability and transparent, honest communication were essential to the ongoing process of individual and relational healing. As healing progressed, couples described a shift toward more open sharing of emotions and needs, particularly regarding what had not been working in the relationship prior to the infidelity. Greater self-understanding and clearer communication of needs allowed partners to respond to one another with increased awareness, supporting self-forgiveness, partner forgiveness, and hope for improvement.

Individual and Relational Healing

Analysis of the data identified individual and relational healing as additional significant aspects of resilience in healing from infidelity. Participants in this study described resilience as requiring intentional work on themselves while remaining engaged in the relational process of repair. Couples emphasized that progress in the relationship could not occur without attending to their own emotions, needs, and growth. For SPs, individual healing involved holding the paradox of being the offender and comforter. As SP 23 explained:

There’s a paradox in a moment where [partner] has triggering thoughts that also stir up something in me, but I set that aside and provide the comfort that [partner’s] seeking. It’s really hard to set that aside and step in as somebody who can comfort her in that situation. It was really challenging to not be upset or offended or just completely shut down.

This account illustrates how individual healing required that the SP work through their own discomfort and defensiveness to be emotionally available to their partner, especially during moments of relational distress. At the same time, NSPs often emphasized the importance of turning inward by investing in hobbies, enriching projects, and self-care. NSP 2 reflected, “Being able to trust myself again and be secure with myself… I wouldn’t call it a click or an ‘ah-ha’ moment, I needed to do some soul searching and fix myself.” The NSP 23 further explained this process:

After I found out all this information, there were a series of steps we took to work toward healing, including individual therapy for each of us. I attended some of [husband’s] sessions. It wasn’t meant to be couples therapy, but I think it was helpful to have me there. The goal of that wasn’t to focus on our marriage but to focus on him.

For this couple, their counselor encouraged them to approach recovery along two tracks: first through healing of the self, and second through healing of the marriage. Participants reflected that resilience was not shaped solely by relational work but also by their own self-reflection, therapy, and personal growth.

Within individual healing, participants described three recurring elements: recognizing the process takes time, practicing accountability, and working toward forgiveness. First, couples emphasized the importance of patience with themselves. NSP 25 said, “It took a long time; it’s not short time work. It’s not a thing that happens quick.” Several noted that even after disclosure, reminders and triggers could reignite feelings of pain or insecurity, which required ongoing personal work to manage.

Accountability also played a critical role in individual healing, particularly for the SP. Accountability was described as moving beyond excuses toward full ownership of one’s actions. NSP 19 reflected, “I would often say it was not my fault that nature created males to be so sexual or needed us to reproduce. You’re always trying to find some other explanation other than your own choices.” Participants described this accountability as difficult yet necessary for their own healing and growth, which in turn supported relational repair.

Finally, forgiveness was described as an essential and challenging part of individual healing. Couples framed forgiveness not as excusing behavior but as releasing emotions tied to anger, shame, or resentment. SP 14 explained, “I didn’t want to be this angry person, cynical about love. I didn’t want to be ‘once a cheater always a cheater, don’t trust men.’ I didn’t want to go down that path. I wanted to have a happy ending, that’s what inspired the forgiveness.” Similarly, SP 6 said, “I needed to feel strong. I needed to feel lovable, all these things. If you can forgive, it shows you’re not holding on to jealousy or insecurity.” For many, forgiveness also included forgiving themselves, either for betraying their partner or for doubting why they chose to stay. Participants described this as a gradual process that allowed grace and empathy to replace shame and self-blame.

Ongoing Process

Couples’ accounts consistently indicated that resilience involved recognizing that healing from infidelity unfolds as an ongoing, layered process rather than a single event. SP 2 explained, “When you go into it you think you’re just going to tackle it all at once. It’s more like peeling it back layer by layer – you have to solve something and let it go, solve something and let it go…. It wasn’t just a one-shot deal.” This perspective illustrates how couples reframed healing as an evolving journey requiring patience, persistence, and flexibility from both partners. This included different aspects of individual and relational healing such as communication, trust, and forgiveness.

Participants emphasized that communication required ongoing mutual tolerance for different timelines. SP 7 described this process, “I felt talking would help, but she wasn’t ready, which made me feel worse. But gradually, slowly, giving that time eventually led to talking about it more and that’s how things started to get better.” Building trust was also a continual process, as explained by NSP 7, “It’s still an ongoing process, but I would say another milestone is building the trust again. Trust is the foundation of a relationship.” Forgiveness also emerged as a continuing practice. Couples distinguished forgiveness from trust, describing forgiveness as a choice while trust required gradual rebuilding. NSP 14 explained, “For me, forgiveness was a choice; trust is a process.” Within this process, couples emphasized reframing setbacks and cultivating hope. Progress was not defined by the absence of conflict but by the ability to pause, regroup, and re-engage. NSP 10 described this mindset: “If we are having a bad day or a bad week we’ll take a pause, and then we’ll continue on a different week.” Resilience developed as couples normalized fluctuations rather than interpreting them as failure.

Couples also described how ongoing relational work contributed to moments of reconnection. NSP 10 reflected, “I can start having a better conversation and crack more jokes and get to know [partner] more. Even if it’s 20 years of marriage, there is always something new to learn about your partner.” These shifts reflected not only repair, but relational renewal. Individual healing was similarly embedded within ongoing relational work. Participants emphasized emotional regulation, self-reflection, and awareness of physical and emotional triggers as necessary components of personal recovery. NSP 25 shared, “It’s not short time work… learning to deal with your emotions differently, accepting things in a new way, listening to your body. Just so much has changed.”

Notably, non-straying partners (NSPs) were the primary voices describing healing as an ongoing process. This pattern may reflect how straying partners (SPs) more frequently described recovery in terms of concrete behavioral changes (e.g., increased patience, transparency, consistency, and accountability), whereas NSPs focused on the internal and relational meaning of those actions. Observable changes from SPs appeared to serve as evidence of repair, while NSPs carried the sustained emotional work of evaluating and responding to those efforts over time.

Participants in this study emphasized that accepting healing as ongoing was itself a critical shift. For couples pursuing resilience after infidelity, normalizing a layered and non-linear trajectory was essential. While resilience is often framed positively (e.g., strength, perseverance), participants described encountering stigma and external doubt about choosing to repair the relationship. Anticipating an extended process helped couples persist in individual healing, accountability, forgiveness, and reconnection across time.

Meaning Making

Meaning making was another significant component of resilience in which couples engaged in collaborative reinterpretation of the betrayal through metaphor, spirituality, forgiveness, and hope, allowing them to hold acknowledgment of harm alongside continued relational commitment. Through creating new understandings of their relationship, themselves, and their partner, couples were able to frame the betrayal in ways that supported movement toward healing. Meaning making appeared in multifaceted, relationally embedded ways that reflected both individual and shared efforts to construct meaning together.

For many couples, metaphors offered a way to grasp the depth of pain and the impact of betrayal. SP 27 compared their actions to violence: “I just took a machine gun and filled [partner] full of bullets. I feel better because now I’ve got all that weight off me, and [partner’s] sitting over in the corner, full of holes and bleeding.” This metaphor reflected the seriousness with which the SP understood the emotional damage and recognition of its lingering consequences. Across couples, healing often required acknowledging harm and connecting areas of meaning to the journey of facing infidelity with resilience. For example, NSP 23 spoke about their children:

In the picture of steps, 1 is your life is perfect, 2 is you’re holding a vase and it’s shattered all over the floor, and 3 is a mosaic you’ve picked up the pieces and put it back together. If I stopped at 2, I would be angry and bitter the rest of my life. The fallout of divorce and impact on our kids’ lives would be so bad. We have young kids, I didn’t want that for them.

Some couples also made meaning through spirituality and religion. Couples reported that spirituality enhanced forgiveness, in which the NSP forgave their partner and the SP forgave themselves. SP 3 said, “If God and [partner] can forgive me, I should be able to forgive myself.” Couples also utilized prayer. NSP 13 said, “I was praying for [partner] and for myself, asking, ‘God, tell me what to do here. Can I have some guidance, strength, or ability to release?’” Some NSP’s found spirituality as a catalyst to a positive view of the SP, reducing fear of betrayal recurrence, and fostering hope and forgiveness. NSP 23 said, “I trust God. I hope [partner] won’t betray me again. I’ll never know for sure, but I have hope.” They went on to say, “I also saw [partner’s] willingness to change and his repentance…. We’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. So, who am I to hold this over [partner’s] head or withhold forgiveness when God has forgiven me?”

Another way meaning making supported resilience was by generally fostering hope for improvement. Couples frequently described how recognizing progress gave them confidence to continue investing in the relationship. NSP 7 reflected, “There is progress. There are high hopes for our relationship and maybe it can…go back to the trust, respect, and love we once had. Seeing [partner’s] progress really helps, and I have hopes compared to a few weeks ago where I had zero.” This hope was often grounded in love and a positive view of their partner, which in turn motivated ongoing commitment to the healing process.

Many couples also made meaning through forgiveness, which was often described as both an emotional release and again, a deliberate decision to keep moving forward. Forgiveness was not equated with forgetting or the absence of pain, but with choosing to continue the relationship despite it. NSP 1 explained, “Forgiveness is intentionally walking with them knowing that they could hit you with a baseball bat but acting as if they never did.” Forgiveness became a relational strategy that allowed couples to reframe betrayal and begin rebuilding trust, even amid ongoing hurt.

Therapy

Our analysis of the data also identified therapy as an important construct in individual and couples’ resilience after infidelity, with participants emphasizing the need to seek professional help right away. Therapy was described as a challenging and empowering process. It gave couples a place to confront painful truths, learn practical strategies, understand why infidelity occurred, and develop compassion for themselves and their partner. Many couples utilized therapy over long periods of time, returning to it when setbacks or triggers arose.

Some couples explained that sharing about infidelity with friends or family backfired. If those individuals were not fully supportive, responses felt judgmental or invalidating, intensifying the sense of isolation. Instead, therapy became the space where couples felt they could speak openly, be understood, and connect with others who had experienced similar betrayals. SP 23 described, “We’ve had to be really careful who we tell because people have a really harsh view of this…so we just kind of relied on our therapy group for most of it.”

Therapy offered a structured process and a safe environment for navigating the process of healing. For some, the therapist became a guide when couples felt lost about what to do next. NSP 2 explained, “I didn’t have any guidance…. Our therapist was my security net, or security blanket at that point.” Many valued having homework or concrete strategies that gave them guidance for how to move forward together. For example, several couples referenced practices like writing a full disclosure. SP 21 discussed the importances of working with a therapist on a therapeutic disclosure.” Similarly, NSP 1 said, “If you don’t have the full disclosure, [healing] doesn’t work.” Another couple spoke about developing a “willing list.” NSP 20 said:

There was an exercise I really appreciated, something [partner] had to do. What is [partner] willing to do, to save our marriage and help heal from the betrayal? There were 20 things [partner] had to come up with on their own. Some included taking regular polygraphs, STD tests, and quitting their job. Pretty much everything had been done. They were willing to anticipate what I needed and actually follow through. It meant a lot.

Therapy allowed for both individual and relational healing. Partners often worked with separate therapists to address the unique challenges of the one who strayed (shame, guilt, compulsive behaviors, sitting in emotional discomfort instead of avoiding it) and the non-straying partner (anger, grief, fear of recurrence). SP 20 said:

[Therapist] taught and pushed empathy for the pain I’ve caused to [partner]. It’s very uncomfortable to hear how badly I’ve hurt [partner]. It fills me with sadness, regret, remorse, guilt and anger at myself and makes me miserable. I don’t want to sit in that or feel that. That creates defensiveness, minimization, anything to make that go away. I can’t sit in emotional discomfort. I learned to sit in discomfort and let [partner] express and feel anger, sadness, and disappointment.

Participants repeatedly emphasized that therapist specialization and expertise were crucial. Couples felt strongly that it was not enough to see any counselor, as they needed someone experienced and confident in working with infidelity. SP 3 said:

It was helpful to work with a therapist who was specifically trained in infidelity, confident, and had walked that same road. They were public about their own journey, and we heard [therapist] give talks locally. There was a sense of trust, because we knew [therapist] understood what we were going through. It provided a safe space.

Couples highlighted how metaphors and analogies, when used by skilled therapists, were particularly helpful in capturing complex emotions and experiences.

Over time, some participants became so empowered through therapy that they pursued credentials in counseling themselves, began leading groups individually and as a couple to help others, and published their own books. SP 1 said, “we just recently led a section. Being group leaders, we did a testimony about our story in a larger group which was pretty nerve wracking, but there’s still this understanding of confidentiality.”

Some individuals and couples also participated in group therapy, which they found to be especially impactful as it countered the sense of isolation and normalized emotions in ways individual therapy could not. Couples reported that hearing others’ stories created solidarity and reduced shame. NSP 29 explained, “It was one of the only places we could go to not feel alone…if you try to talk to someone who hasn’t been through this, they can be judgmental.” Group settings were said to provide an environment where pain was collectively understood, not criticized.

Reinvented Normalcy

Resilience in the context of infidelity often required couples to reinvent normalcy, creating new patterns of connection, trust, and meaning in their relationships. For couples, rather than returning to familiar routines from before the infidelity, partners described developing new ways of spending time together, fostering closeness, and developing a shared understanding. These efforts strengthened their relationships by promoting adaptability and a renewed commitment to moving forward together. NSP 6 said:

I just like [partner]. They’re funny and the person I want to spend time with. We’ve made a point to spend time together. We’ve talked about how quality time is important for both of us. We call it ‘having abundance.’ It’s this time of day where we’re not going to talk about calendars, do chores, or all the adult stuff that can take away from that time. We make a point to sit on the couch and watch our favorite show or watch our kids play outside.

For many couples, reinventing normalcy meant a continual process of unlearning, learning, and relearning. They emphasized the importance of making consistent efforts to foster openness and vulnerability, often by shifting priorities. SP 27 explained:

I’m trying to make it more of a focus than I had before. I always wanted to try to do things for her, but it was more of a secondary thing, and now trying to make it more of a priority so she feels the value she has to me.

Reinvented normalcy overlapped with other processes, particularly open communication and cultivating hope for the future. Couples described how their healing was strengthened by deeper, intentional conversations. For example, SP 6 shared:

We’re able to get to the deeper conversation quicker; we repair more effectively and quickly. Whereas before, if we had a setback, it would be weeks before we would even talk honestly. I believe if you really want it and you’re both willing, it’s going to work out.

Such intentional shifts in dialogue helped couples regularly utilize honest, meaningful communication, bringing them closer. Reinventing normalcy required couples to acknowledge old routines that were ineffective and replace them with healthier patterns of interaction. This deliberate process of reshaping daily life, prioritizing quality time, and engaging in more vulnerable communication became central to how couples cultivated resilience. Couples leaned into reconnecting by going on dates, taking vacations together, and renewing their vows.

Consistent with healing as an ongoing process, reinvented normalcy developed gradually through conscious effort and consistent practice. SP 9 reflected on this process:

We moved on with our lives; we hugged, we kissed, we shared all our passwords. We went to several events, we went out, we were going for strolls, trying to just be with each other and show affection. We were literally doing things together just to consciously build that relationship back.

Reinvented normalcy was represented in daily choices, routines, and intentional centering of the relationship, which one couple described as “marriage 2.0.” For them, a new normal meant ongoing intentional communication, emotional vulnerability, quality time, and shared future-oriented goals, making them stronger than before.

Discussion

The purpose of this study was to explore how couples cultivate resilience in the aftermath of infidelity and to examine how these processes compare with sensitizing constructs drawn from existing resilience literature. Findings affirmed and refined key resilience constructs, illustrating that resilience in the context of infidelity is relational, multidimensional, and contextualized by betrayal-specific dynamics. Consistent with prior resilience literature, open communication, individual healing, meaning making, and reinvented normalcy were reflected in participants’ narratives. However, couples expanded these constructs in ways that were uniquely shaped by the relational impact of infidelity, such as through the central role of transparency and the paradoxical emotional demands of betrayer and comforter on SPs. Inductively developed constructs included relational healing, the significance of therapy as a form of social support that reduced isolation and stigma, and the ongoing nature of resilience in the context of healing.

Results provided nuanced insight into how resilience is enacted within the specific context of infidelity recovery. Whereas broader conceptualization of resilience may be described as adaptation despite experienced adversity (Herrman et al., 2011; Joseph & Linley, 2006), participants in this study affirmed that resilience following infidelity is an evolving process, in which the sensitizing and emergent constructs are best understood as overlapping, interdependent processes which continually reinforce one another across the healing process. The following section compares each theme developed through our analysis with the original sensitizing constructs and resilience literature, illustrating how findings either align with, refine, or expand existing resilience frameworks in the context of infidelity.

Aligned, Refined, and Expanded Themes in Relation to Sensitizing Constructs

Consistent with the sensitizing construct of open communication (Afifi et al., 2016; Buzzanell & Houston, 2018), participants emphasized honest, intentional, vulnerable, and consistent communication as crucial to resilience. Couples in this study affirmed this, emphasizing communication as a foundational process upon which healing occurred. Findings further expanded this construct by highlighting the importance of full disclosure, ongoing transparency to rebuild trust, and emotionally attuned responses from the SP. Within the specific context of betrayal, communication functioned as a mechanism for rebuilding trust and cultivating hope for improvement.

The sensitizing construct of individual healing was originally conceptualized as self-focused processes including self-discovery, self-compassion, self-forgiveness, self-care, self-regard, self-reliance, and self-advocacy (Herrman et al., 2011; Joseph & Linley, 2006; Schetter & Dolbier, 2011). Within resilience literature, individual healing is often associated with personality traits and cognitive appraisals that support adaptation to adversity (e.g., openness, self-efficacy, locus of control, optimism; Herrman et al., 2011). In our study, this construct was strongly supported in the findings, as couples emphasized similar self-related processes while also providing nuance regarding how healing unfolded differently based on each partner’s role. SPs frequently navigated the paradox of being both the betrayer and comforter, while NSPs emphasized releasing emotions of anger, shame, and resentment and choosing forgiveness. Participants also described relational healing, suggesting that individual and relational processes were intertwined throughout recovery. These findings expand upon the construct of individual healing by illuminating how self-focused processes unfolded within relational interactions between partners, supporting relational healing as an important dimension of resilience during infidelity recovery. Participants described engaging in self-reflection, accountability, and forgiveness while learning to respond to their partner with greater empathy and emotional availability, although these processes manifested differently based on partners’ roles as the SP or NSP. In this way, individual and relational healing supported partners’ and couples’ capacity for resilience and contributed to the ongoing process of relational repair.

Although resilience is often described as a trait (e.g., hardiness) that enables individuals to bounce back from adversity (Campbell-Sills & Stein, 2007), scholars in communication and related fields conceptualize resilience as an evolving process that unfolds in response to single or repeated disruptive events, involving ongoing processes marked by adaptation, transformation, and interaction (e.g., Afifi et al., 2016; Beck, 2016; Southwick et al., 2014; Walsh, 2016; Wilson et al., 2021). In a similar fashion, couples in our study emphasized that healing from infidelity was inherently ongoing, layered, and non-linear. This refines existing conceptualizations by highlighting that trust-building and the development of new routines for couples takes time while reducing the view of setbacks as insurmountable and normalizing emotional triggers.

Meaning making was previously defined as an individual cognitive orientation of conceptualizing events with a perspective of change, flexibility, and growth (Afifi, 2018; Joseph & Linley, 2006). Within the specific context of healing from infidelity, participants expanded this understanding through incorporating shared metaphors that captured the harm of betrayal and encouraged accountability, shared responsibility and teamwork for “picking up the pieces,” and sources of meaning such as children, religion, spirituality, and viewing one’s partner positively, all of which supported forgiveness and reinvented normalcy.

An additional refinement that emerged beyond the sensitizing constructs was the central role of therapy in facilitating resilience. While social support is acknowledged in broader resilience literature (Kumar et al., 2023; Olekalns et al., 2019), participants emphasized therapy as a catalyst for relational repair and self-growth. What makes therapy unique as an emerging construct is the way it expands upon the sensitizing construct of social support. Rather than relying primarily on family or friends, couples found resilience through professional and peer therapeutic spaces that were nonjudgmental, safe, and equipped with specialized expertise. Couples stressed the importance of exercises, homework, and therapeutic assistance with full disclosure. Therapy helped the SPs work through guilt, shame, and compulsive behaviors, and the NSP process insecurity, grief, and anger. Therapy assisted both the NSP and SP in understanding why the infidelity occurred, and some participants later described feeling empowered to lead groups or share their stories as part of their healing journey.

Finally, findings supported the sensitizing construct of reinvented normalcy, conceptualized as healthier routines, cognitive reframing, homeostasis, and maintaining balance (Herrman et al., 2011; Walsh, 2016), with couples also describing the development of new routines, boundaries, and expectations following infidelity. Rather than returning to a pre-infidelity state, participants emphasized creating a “new” relational baseline characterized by increased communication, quality time, renewed commitment, and reorganized priorities. Such accounts refine the construct by illustrating that resilience in the context of infidelity involves relational reorganization resulting in healthier interaction patterns between partners.

Implications for Clinicians

These findings carry several important implications for clinicians working with couples healing from infidelity. First, clinicians should normalize for clients that recovery is rarely linear, as prior research on infidelity recovery emphasizes emotional processing across time (Author, 2023; Heintzelman et al., 2014; Walravens & Rober, 2024). Rather than being a fixed trait, resilience can be developed and learned through thoughts and behaviors. Progress often unfolds in cycles, with setbacks and triggers being a natural part of the process rather than signs of failure (Mitchell et al., 2022). Helping couples reframe these setbacks as opportunities for renewed engagement may sustain momentum and reduce discouragement. Findings also suggest that certain areas of focus may be foundational. For example, fostering open communication and transparency to rebuild trust may need to precede efforts to fully reconnect and reestablish intimacy.

Second, therapists must remain attentive to the different positionalities of the NSP and SP. Across interviews, NSPs tended to speak more extensively, likely reflecting the depth of their pain and their relative freedom in voicing it. SPs, by contrast, often contributed less (regardless of gender), which may stem from shame, guilt, or fear of retraumatizing their partner. Prior research similarly suggests distinct role differences between injured and involved partners during recovery (Author et al., 2024; Mitchell et al., 2022; Walravens & Rober, 2024). Therefore, clinicians should intentionally create structured opportunities for SPs to share their experiences and perspectives, recognizing that their healing process may unfold differently and that resilience must be co-constructed rather than led solely by the NSP.

Third, couple therapists should consider assessing clients’ level of pre-established resilience during the initial stages of couple therapy, as couples in this study described additional challenges or delayed healing due to pre-existing life traumas and attachment wounds. Understanding clients’ past traumas as well as resilience experiences may allow therapists to better utilize client strengths in treatment and to refer to individual therapy when appropriate.

Last, the role of therapy in facilitating resilience underscores the value of specialized knowledge and intentional clinical practice. Couples described therapy as a crucial form of selective sharing, where they could disclose their experiences in a nonjudgmental, supportive space, aligning with prior findings highlighting that couples often experience stigma and conditional support following infidelity (Weiser et al., 2023). Therapists who demonstrated confidence, expertise in treating infidelity and compulsive sexual behavior (when applicable), and the use of concrete tools were perceived as especially effective. Finally, clinicians may find that incorporating analogies or metaphors create powerful and memorable therapeutic experiences. Findings also highlighted the benefits of multiple formats: individual therapy, couples therapy, and support groups.

Limitations and Future Research

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these findings. First, participants were drawn from couples who chose to share their experiences of infidelity and resilience, which may reflect a self-selection bias toward those who had achieved a degree of recovery or who felt comfortable discussing these issues. Couples who did not reach this stage, or whose relationships ended after infidelity, may have offered different perspectives. Second, despite the richness of the narratives, NSPs tended to speak more extensively than SPs, limiting the depth of insight into the unique resilience processes of the straying partner. Third, although participants described a range of infidelity experiences (e.g., emotional, physical, online), they rarely emphasized the type, intensity, or frequency of infidelity as central to their resilience process. This contrasts with some prior research and suggests that, for many couples, the focus of resilience was on relational recovery rather than on categorizing the betrayal. Fourth, qualitative research emphasizes depth, and while our sample provided thick description, the findings may not be generalizable to all couples or cultural contexts. Lastly, researcher interpretation is an inherent part of qualitative analysis. Although reflexivity and team coding were used to strengthen rigor, findings still reflect the interpretive lens of the research team.

Future research should continue to explore the dynamic nature of resilience in couples recovering from infidelity. Longitudinal studies are particularly needed to trace how resilience processes shift over time and to examine which practices predict sustained relationship satisfaction and growth. Additionally, future work should intentionally recruit both NSPs and SPs with attention to balancing their voices to capture the full range of experiences (e.g., questions specifically designed for the NSP or SP to answer). Understanding how SPs make sense of resilience, particularly when shame or guilt may constrain disclosure, remains an important gap. Further, comparative studies across diverse cultural, religious, and relational contexts could deepen understanding of how resilience manifests differently depending on broader values and norms about marriage, fidelity, and forgiveness. Finally, given the emerging construct of therapy, future research might examine specific therapeutic models and interventions that best facilitate individual and relational resilience, with attention to how couples can be empowered to heal and to support others’ healing, as several participants in this study reported doing.

Conclusion

This study contributes to the growing body of research on resilience by illuminating how couples cultivate resilience in the aftermath of infidelity. Findings suggest that resilience is not a discrete trait or outcome, but a dynamic process characterized by open communication, individual healing, ongoing process, therapy, meaning making, and reinvented normalcy. Rather than unfolding as isolated steps, these processes intersected and reinforced one another, forming a web of relational practices that influenced resilience. Importantly, couples often described their relationships as stronger and more intentional than before, highlighting the potential for growth in the wake of betrayal. For clinicians, the study suggests the importance of fostering safe spaces, attending to the positionalities of both partners, and integrating concrete, meaningful practices into therapy. For researchers, the findings point to the need for further exploration of how resilience unfolds across diverse couples, contexts, and cultural backgrounds. Ultimately, this study emphasizes that resilience after infidelity is co-created, requiring growth and change from both partners while attending to the unique challenges faced by the NSP and SP.