Can a Relationship Survive Infidelity? What Recovery Research Actually Shows

3 days ago

19 min read

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: September 27, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Yes. A relationship can survive infidelity. Research shows that some couples remain together, regain relationship satisfaction, and build a workable relationship after an affair. It also shows that infidelity is associated with a substantially higher risk of separation or divorce. Those two findings belong together: survival is possible, but it is neither automatic nor measurable by one universal success rate.

The most useful evidence comes from several different kinds of studies. Population research can show whether extramarital sex is associated with later relationship dissolution. Couple-therapy studies can show whether selected couples who seek help are capable of improving. Long-term follow-up can show whether gains persist. Qualitative studies can describe what couples who stayed together say helped them heal. None of those study types, by itself, can tell one particular couple what will happen.

This article answers the outcome question: can a relationship survive infidelity, and what does research actually allow us to say about that possibility? It does not decide whether a particular person should stay or leave, prescribe a universal recovery sequence, or promise that trust, forgiveness, or reconciliation will occur.

The Short Answer: Survival Is Possible, but “Survival” Needs a Definition

In relationship research, “survival” can refer to several different outcomes. A couple may remain legally married or romantically partnered while still experiencing severe distress. Another couple may remain together and gradually regain satisfaction. Another may redefine the relationship after the affair and decide that the new relationship is worth maintaining. A fourth may stay together for a period and later separate.

That is why a simple yes-or-no measure such as “still together” is a low-resolution outcome. The research question becomes more meaningful when relationship status is considered alongside relationship satisfaction, stability, emotional functioning, trust, and whether both partners are freely choosing the relationship.

The broad definition of infidelity, its forms, and the role of relationship agreements belong to our separate evidence review, What Is Infidelity? Meaning, Types, Examples, and What Research Shows. For this article, the starting point is that a relevant relationship boundary has been violated and the couple is facing the question of what happens next.

Relationship continuation

The most basic meaning of survival is that the couple does not separate or divorce. This is straightforward to measure, but it says little about the quality of the surviving relationship. Staying together can reflect renewed commitment, uncertainty, practical constraints, children, financial interdependence, fear, habit, cultural expectations, or many of these factors at once.

Relational recovery

A stronger outcome is recovery in relationship functioning: the couple remains together and reports meaningful improvement in satisfaction, stability, communication, emotional safety, or other indicators of relationship quality. Several therapy studies suggest that this kind of improvement is possible in at least some couples after infidelity.

Individual recovery

The betrayed partner’s psychological recovery and the relationship’s survival are related but separate outcomes. A person can recover emotionally and decide to end the relationship. A couple can remain together while one or both partners continue to experience significant distress. Research and clinical care should therefore avoid treating preservation of the couple as the only successful outcome.

Reconciliation, forgiveness, and trust

Reconciliation, forgiveness, and restored trust overlap with relationship survival, but they are not synonyms. A couple can stay together before trust is restored. Forgiveness can occur without reconciliation, and reconciliation can begin before forgiveness. The survival question asks whether a viable continuing relationship is possible; it does not make any of these other outcomes mandatory.

What Population Research Says About Infidelity and Relationship Dissolution

Population-level evidence gives an important reality check. In a longitudinal analysis of 1,853 married adults from the U.S. General Social Survey, Labrecque and Whisman found that people who reported extramarital sex at baseline were significantly more likely to be separated or divorced two years later than people who did not report extramarital sex. The association remained statistically significant after adjustment for baseline marital satisfaction.

This finding supports a clear conclusion: infidelity is associated with elevated risk of marital dissolution. It does not support a deterministic conclusion that an affair inevitably ends a relationship. An association describes a difference in risk across groups; it does not determine the future of every couple in either group.

The same study also found that the identity of the extramarital partner mattered: extramarital sex with a close personal friend showed a particularly strong association with dissolution. That result is informative about population patterns, but it should not be converted into a rule that one type of affair guarantees a particular outcome. Context, disclosure, relationship structure, and other variables still matter.

What Couple-Therapy Studies Actually Show

Therapy research answers a different question from population studies. It does not estimate how many relationships in the general population will survive infidelity. It asks what happens among couples who are distressed enough to seek treatment and, in many studies, are willing and able to remain in a study long enough to receive it. That selection matters.

A small randomized-trial subgroup showed that infidelity couples can improve

In 2005, Atkins and colleagues examined 19 couples with infidelity within a larger randomized clinical trial of marital therapy involving 134 couples. The infidelity couples entered therapy more distressed than couples without infidelity. Couples in which the affair was revealed before or during therapy showed substantial improvement in relationship satisfaction.

This study is encouraging because it demonstrates that severe relationship distress after infidelity can change during treatment. It is also a very small subgroup analysis. Nineteen couples cannot provide a stable population survival rate, and the study cannot tell us that disclosure alone caused the improvement.

A larger community therapy sample found meaningful improvement

A 2010 community-based study compared 145 couples who reported infidelity as a relationship problem with 385 couples who sought therapy for other reasons in Germany and Austria. The infidelity couples began therapy with greater relationship distress and more depressive symptoms. They continued improving through the end of therapy and at six-month follow-up, and by follow-up they were not statistically distinguishable from the non-infidelity couples on the study’s primary outcomes.

This is one of the more practically useful findings in the literature: couples presenting with infidelity can begin in worse condition and still make substantial gains. The limits remain important. The study was observational within routine care, follow-up data were missing for many participants, and couples who enter therapy are not representative of every couple affected by an affair.

A randomized controlled trial showed improvement in distress, with a harder result for relationship satisfaction

The strongest experimental evidence specific to affair recovery is more mixed. In a randomized controlled trial of 89 couples whose affair had been disclosed within the previous six months, Kröger and colleagues assigned couples to treatment or a waiting-list control condition. Treatment produced significant improvements in anxiety for both partners and in depression for the unfaithful partner, but relationship satisfaction did not improve sufficiently for both partners.

About half of the couples dropped out for reasons that included an ongoing affair and separation. That fact is not a minor statistical footnote. It shows why treatment-completer samples can make recovery look simpler than real life: the couples who are hardest to stabilize may leave the study precisely because the relationship is ending or the affair is continuing.

The RCT therefore supports a nuanced conclusion. Structured treatment can reduce important forms of individual distress after an affair, but improvement in symptoms is not identical to restoration of the relationship, and even a well-designed trial does not guarantee couple survival.

The Five-Year Study That Is Often Turned Into a Misleading “Success Rate”

A frequently cited study followed the 19 infidelity couples from the behavioral couple-therapy trial for up to five years. Marín, Christensen, and Atkins reported that 53% of those 19 infidelity couples were divorced by five years after therapy, compared with 23% of the 115 couples without identified infidelity in the parent trial.

The study also found an important split inside the infidelity group. Descriptively, 43% of the 14 couples in which the infidelity was revealed were divorced by five years, compared with 80% of the five couples in which the infidelity remained secret during therapy. Because those subgroups contained only 14 and five couples, respectively, the numbers should be read as observations from a small clinical sample, not as general probabilities for disclosed versus undisclosed affairs.

The most clinically meaningful result was not the headline divorce percentage. Among infidelity couples who remained married, relationship satisfaction and marital stability were not significantly different from those of the non-infidelity couples who remained married. Couples who stayed married improved in relationship satisfaction over time regardless of infidelity status.

In other words, the study is evidence for two possible trajectories inside a highly selected treatment sample: some relationships deteriorated and ended, while some surviving relationships improved substantially. It is evidence that recovery can be real. It is not evidence that any particular couple has a 47%, 57%, or any other fixed chance of success.

Why There Is No Credible Universal “Infidelity Survival Rate”

Search results often present a single percentage for how many marriages survive cheating. The scientific literature does not support one universal number. Different studies define infidelity differently, recruit different populations, measure different outcomes, and follow people for different lengths of time.

A therapy clinic sample overrepresents couples who are motivated enough to seek help. A survey of people who stayed together cannot include the relationships that already ended. A study of married heterosexual adults cannot automatically be generalized to dating, cohabiting, same-sex, queer, consensually non-monogamous, or culturally different relationships. A six-month follow-up and a five-year follow-up are measuring different periods of risk.

There is also a denominator problem. “Survival” can mean still being married, still being together, reporting satisfactory functioning, no longer considering separation, or feeling that trust has returned. Those outcomes can diverge sharply.

The responsible answer to “what percentage survive?” is therefore that no single percentage applies across relationships. The evidence is strong enough to establish possibility and elevated risk, but not strong enough to provide a universal personal prognosis.

What Recent 2026 Research Adds

The 2026 literature has expanded the evidence base, especially around recovery processes and client experience, while still leaving the central prognosis problem unresolved.

A systematic thematic synthesis identified recurring change processes

A 2026 systematic thematic synthesis by Yalçın and Yavuz Güler reviewed 11 intervention-oriented studies of post-infidelity couple and family therapy. Across approaches, the authors identified recurring processes involving emotional safety, meaning-making, attachment repair, behavioral consistency, and relational restructuring. They proposed a flexible clinical heuristic rather than a single mandatory sequence.

That review strengthens the case that post-infidelity recovery has recurring therapeutic mechanisms. It does not establish that every couple must pass through fixed stages, and it does not produce a general probability of reconciliation.

Qualitative studies show what recovery can look like among couples who stayed

In a 2026 qualitative study of 31 couples who had stayed together and experienced some healing, Fife and colleagues identified themes including open communication, individual healing, meaning-making, therapy, relational healing, and the creation of a revised sense of normality. Participants often described recovery as ongoing rather than finished.

This kind of evidence is valuable for understanding lived recovery, but its sampling logic must be explicit: researchers intentionally studied couples who stayed together and experienced healing. The study therefore describes possible resilience processes among survivors; it cannot estimate how often survival occurs.

A separate 2026 qualitative study by Mitchell and colleagues focused on 11 injured partners who chose to remain after infidelity. Their accounts highlighted the complexity of reasons for staying, apology, social support, sexual intimacy expectations, rebuilding trust, therapy, and other resources. Again, the sample was selected for the very outcome being studied—remaining in the relationship.

Earlier qualitative research from Mitchell and colleagues interviewing both partners in nine couples likewise found overlapping but not identical recovery experiences between injured and involved partners. Such studies help explain why couples can interpret the same recovery period differently.

A large international survey broadens client perspectives, not causal certainty

In 2026, Irvine and Peluso reported an international mixed-methods survey of 5,233 people who identified as either the involved or uninvolved partner in a relationship affected by infidelity. The study adds unusually large-scale information about therapeutic experiences, perceived supports, barriers, discovery, and long-term outcomes.

Its size is a strength, but size does not transform a self-selected survey into a population experiment. The study is best used to understand patterns in client experience and gaps in care, rather than to calculate an individual couple’s odds of staying together.

What Seems to Matter for Relationship Outcomes

Research is much better at identifying recurring conditions and correlates than at producing deterministic rules. The following factors are best understood as outcome-relevant context. They do not function as a checklist that guarantees recovery.

Whether the outside relationship is still active

An ongoing affair changes the problem from recovery after a past boundary violation to a continuing relational conflict. In the Kröger randomized trial, ongoing affairs were among the reasons couples dropped out. This does not prove that every ongoing affair makes future recovery impossible, but it does show why studies of recovery often struggle to retain couples when the outside involvement has not ended.

Whether reality can be discussed without continuing concealment

The small behavioral-therapy literature repeatedly points to disclosure as clinically important. The 2005 trial subgroup and the five-year follow-up both found better trajectories among couples in which the infidelity was revealed than among those in which it remained secret. Because disclosure was not randomly assigned, these findings are associations. Couples able to disclose may differ from couples maintaining secrecy in motivation, commitment, severity, or other unmeasured ways.

The evidence therefore supports a modest formulation: continuing concealment is a serious barrier to shared recovery work, while disclosure and accountability are common features of couples who improve. It does not justify forced disclosure rituals, unlimited interrogation, digital surveillance, or a claim that one conversation repairs trust.

Whether both partners are participating voluntarily

A relationship cannot be repaired by one partner acting alone on behalf of two people. One person can work on personal recovery, clarify boundaries, make decisions, and change their own behavior. A continuing couple relationship requires at least enough mutual participation for agreements and choices to have shared meaning.

This distinction is especially important when one partner says they want the relationship to survive but continues the outside relationship, denies established facts, refuses all discussion, or demands immediate forgiveness. Statements of intention and observable participation are not the same kind of evidence.

The relationship context before and after the affair

Pre-affair relationship quality matters, but it should not be used to assign blame for the decision to be unfaithful. The General Social Survey analysis found that extramarital sex predicted greater risk of separation or divorce even after baseline marital satisfaction was taken into account.

The reasons people become unfaithful are heterogeneous and belong to a separate evidence question. Our review Why Do People Cheat? Motives, Opportunity, Relationship Factors, and Research examines motives and correlates without treating relationship dissatisfaction as a universal cause or excuse. Knowing why an affair happened may become relevant to meaning-making, but it does not by itself tell a couple whether the relationship will survive.

Whether infidelity is isolated or repeated

A single event and a repeated pattern create different evidentiary contexts, but even repeated infidelity does not yield a diagnosis or a mathematically certain outcome. Our article Serial Infidelity: Repeated Cheating, Relationship Patterns, and What Research Shows owns the evidence on recurrent cheating patterns. For the survival question, repetition is one part of the couple’s actual history rather than a universal verdict.

Access to appropriate professional support

Couple therapy can be helpful for some partners after infidelity, but the evidence base is smaller than popular advice often implies. The 2005, 2010, and 2012 studies show that meaningful improvement is possible, while also documenting small samples, missing data, dropout, mixed relationship-satisfaction outcomes, and selected treatment populations.

A current American Psychological Association clinical overview similarly emphasizes that there is no universal answer to whether partners stay or go and that clinicians often see a self-selected group already motivated to repair. Therapy can support healing, decision-making, or separation; its role should not be reduced to keeping the couple together.

What Does Not, by Itself, Tell You Whether the Relationship Will Survive

How intense the first days or weeks feel

Acute shock, anger, grief, intrusive thoughts, anxiety, sleep disruption, and hypervigilance can be severe after discovery. Their presence does not by itself predict the final relationship outcome. In a small study of 73 unmarried young adults, Roos and colleagues documented substantial post-traumatic-stress symptoms after partner infidelity, but symptom intensity and relationship prognosis are different questions.

Infidelity is not a mental disorder. “Post-infidelity stress disorder” is not an official DSM or ICD diagnosis. Trauma-like symptoms after an affair do not, by themselves, establish PTSD, and intrusive thoughts after betrayal should not be relabeled as OCD without the diagnostic features required for OCD.

One dramatic apology or one calm conversation

Relationship outcomes unfold over repeated interactions. An apology can matter, but one apology cannot demonstrate long-term reliability. Likewise, one argument does not prove that repair is impossible. The research on recovery is longitudinal or process-oriented precisely because the relevant unit is a pattern over time, not a single emotional moment.

Children, years together, or shared assets

Shared history can increase the costs of separation and can strengthen motivation to try to repair a relationship. It does not establish that staying is psychologically healthy, freely chosen, or safe. Relationship continuation and relationship quality must be evaluated separately.

The label attached to the affair

Emotional, sexual, online, and financial infidelity refer to different behaviors and boundary violations. Research does not justify a universal hierarchy in which one category is always easier or harder to survive. Duration, deception, emotional involvement, relationship agreements, and meaning can vary within each category.

A fixed number of months or years

There is no scientifically established deadline by which a couple must be “recovered.” Studies use very different follow-up periods, and qualitative research describes recovery as non-linear and ongoing. A setback or reminder does not automatically mean recovery has failed, while simply remaining together for a long time does not prove that the relationship has healed.

Staying Together Is Not the Same as Rebuilding a Good Relationship

This distinction is central to interpreting the evidence. A couple can survive structurally and remain chronically distressed. Another can separate after a thoughtful process and experience strong individual recovery. A third can remain together and report increasing satisfaction. Counting only who is still partnered collapses these very different outcomes into one number.

The five-year Marín study makes this especially visible. Infidelity couples who eventually divorced showed the greatest instability, but infidelity couples who remained married were not significantly different in relationship satisfaction or stability from the non-infidelity couples who remained married. The surviving relationships were not merely frozen in their initial post-affair distress.

At the same time, survivor studies can overrepresent positive narratives. If researchers recruit couples who stayed together and experienced healing, it is unsurprising that they hear stories of growth, renewed intentionality, and a “new normal.” Those reports are real descriptions of some couples’ experience, but they do not show that growth is a typical or required consequence of infidelity.

Can a Relationship Become Stronger After Infidelity?

Some couples report that the relationship they build after an affair becomes more deliberate, communicative, or emotionally engaged than the relationship they had before. The 2026 Fife study includes such accounts, and long-term therapy research shows that some couples who stay together continue to improve.

The scientifically defensible claim is that post-infidelity improvement beyond the pre-treatment state is possible. The evidence does not justify telling betrayed partners that infidelity was “good for the relationship,” that suffering is necessary for growth, or that a stronger relationship should be expected. Growth is an observed possibility, not an obligation.

Can Trust Return?

Trust can improve after infidelity, but relationship survival and trust restoration are different endpoints. Trust after a major boundary violation is usually better understood as an updated judgment based on subsequent behavior than as a simple return to the assumptions that existed before discovery.

Recent qualitative and intervention research repeatedly includes transparency, consistency, emotional safety, and relational restructuring among the processes described by recovering couples. That pattern supports the possibility of renewed trust. It does not establish a universal protocol, an entitlement to access every private device, or a guarantee that the betrayed partner will eventually feel the same kind of trust as before.

Does Couples Therapy Make a Relationship More Likely to Survive?

The available evidence supports couple therapy as a potentially useful context for recovery, but it does not support a simple causal statement that therapy makes any particular relationship survive. The strongest infidelity-specific randomized trial found meaningful improvements in individual distress but insufficient improvement in relationship satisfaction for both partners. Other therapy studies found strong gains, but they were smaller, observational, or based on selected subgroups.

The 2026 systematic synthesis strengthens the evidence for recurring change processes across therapeutic approaches, while also highlighting the need for more longitudinal, process-oriented, and culturally responsive research. The correct conclusion is that therapy can support important recovery processes for some couples; the field still lacks large, diverse trials that can generate a precise prognosis.

Therapy is also not synonymous with reconciliation. Individual therapy can support a betrayed or involved partner regardless of relationship outcome, and couple therapy may help partners reach a clearer decision to stay together or to separate. A clinically meaningful outcome can be improved functioning and safer decision-making even when the relationship ends.

When Relationship Survival Should Not Be the Primary Goal

When infidelity occurs alongside coercive control, stalking, threats, sexual coercion, physical violence, or credible fear of retaliation, safety takes priority over reconciliation. Advice designed for ordinary couple conflict can become unsafe when one partner uses monitoring, intimidation, force, or punishment to control the other.

In those situations, the relevant first question is not “How do we save the relationship?” but “How can the person at risk become safer and obtain appropriate support?” Joint disclosure or couple-confrontation strategies may be inappropriate when they could increase danger. Immediate danger warrants local emergency assistance; ongoing abuse warrants specialized domestic-violence support appropriate to the person’s location.

A Research-Informed Way to Think About the Question

“Can this relationship survive?” is best treated as a question about possible trajectories rather than a demand for an instant forecast. The research supports four propositions.

First, infidelity is a real marker of elevated dissolution risk. Population studies consistently make it inappropriate to minimize the event as irrelevant to relationship stability.

Second, elevated risk is not inevitability. Therapy and long-term follow-up studies document couples who remain together and regain substantial relationship functioning.

Third, the couples most visible in recovery studies are selected. They have often disclosed the affair, entered therapy, stayed in treatment, chosen to remain together, or already experienced some healing. Their outcomes demonstrate possibility more clearly than probability.

Fourth, survival should be evaluated together with safety, consent, emotional functioning, relationship quality, and freedom of choice. Preserving the formal relationship is not the only valid outcome.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a marriage survive infidelity?

Yes. Longitudinal and therapy research documents marriages that remain intact and improve after infidelity. The same research also shows elevated separation and divorce risk. No study can convert those group findings into a guaranteed prognosis for one marriage.

What percentage of relationships survive cheating?

There is no single scientifically defensible percentage. Published estimates come from different definitions, samples, relationship types, treatment settings, and follow-up periods. The often-cited five-year therapy study included only 19 infidelity couples, so its percentages should not be presented as a general population survival rate.

Can a relationship survive if trust is gone?

A relationship can continue while trust is severely damaged, but durable relational recovery usually requires some basis for renewed confidence in the partner’s behavior. Research supports the possibility of rebuilding trust-related functioning over time; it does not guarantee that trust returns or require the betrayed partner to provide it.

Can a relationship survive if the affair is still ongoing?

An ongoing affair makes recovery substantially harder to define because the boundary violation is continuing rather than being processed as a past event. Ongoing affairs were among the reasons couples left the randomized treatment study. That observation supports treating continued outside involvement as a major barrier, not as proof of an inevitable future outcome.

Does disclosure improve the chance of staying together?

Small therapy studies found better outcomes among couples in which infidelity was revealed than among couples where it remained secret. Those findings are correlational and based on very small infidelity samples, so they should not be interpreted as a precise causal effect or a numerical prediction.

Can couples recover without therapy?

Some couples do. Research on therapy demonstrates that structured professional help can support recovery, but it does not establish therapy as a necessary condition for every successful relationship. Conversely, seeking therapy does not guarantee reconciliation. The appropriate level and type of support depend on distress, safety, complexity, resources, and the couple’s goals.

How long does it take to recover from infidelity?

There is no fixed evidence-based timeline. Studies follow couples over periods ranging from weeks to years, and qualitative work describes recovery as uneven and ongoing. A calendar alone cannot determine whether a relationship is healing.

Can a couple stay together without forgiveness?

Yes. Forgiveness and relationship continuation are distinct constructs. A person may remain undecided about forgiveness while still exploring the future of the relationship, and a person may forgive while choosing not to reconcile. Neither outcome should be demanded as proof of recovery.

Does staying together prove the affair has been overcome?

No. Relationship status is only one outcome. A complete assessment would also consider safety, distress, satisfaction, stability, trust, conflict, autonomy, and whether both partners continue the relationship freely.

Conclusion: What the Evidence Supports

A relationship can survive infidelity, and some surviving relationships recover substantial satisfaction and stability. That conclusion is supported by clinical trials, community therapy studies, long-term follow-up, and recent qualitative research.

The evidence also supports caution about certainty. Infidelity is associated with greater risk of relationship dissolution, treatment samples are selected, dropout is substantial in some studies, long-term infidelity-specific samples are small, and survivor studies cannot estimate the probability of survival.

The strongest answer is therefore neither “infidelity always ends a relationship” nor “most couples can fix it if they try hard enough.” Research supports a range of trajectories. Some couples separate. Some remain together without fully recovering. Some remain together and improve markedly. The scientifically meaningful question is not only whether the relationship continues, but what kind of relationship continues, under what conditions, with what level of safety and functioning, and by whose free choice.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022–2025). About DSM-5-TR. https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/practice/dsm/about-dsm

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(1), 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(2), 212–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018789

Fife, S., Bloomberg, A., Swift, S., Cook, E., & Ramos, A. (2026). Resilience factors in couple healing from infidelity: A deductive qualitative analysis study. Contemporary Family Therapy, 48, 478–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10591-026-09785-z

Irvine, T. J., & Peluso, P. R. (2026). Client-centered perspectives on couple therapy for infidelity from an international mixed-methods survey. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 52(1), e70112. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70112

Kröger, C., Reißner, T., Vasterling, I., Schütz, K., & Kliem, S. (2012). Therapy for couples after an affair: A randomized-controlled trial. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50(12), 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.09.006

Labrecque, L. T., & Whisman, M. A. (2020). Extramarital sex and marital dissolution: Does identity of the extramarital partner matter? Family Process, 59(3), 1308–1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/famp.12472

Marín, R. A., Christensen, A., & Atkins, D. C. (2014). Infidelity and behavioral couple therapy: Relationship outcomes over 5 years following therapy. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 3(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1037/cfp0000012

Medaris, A. (2026, July 1). How psychologists help patients heal from infidelity. Monitor on Psychology, 57(5). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2026/07-08/psychologists-help-heal-infidelity

Mitchell, E. A., Wittenborn, A. K., Timm, T. M., & Blow, A. J. (2022). Affair recovery: Exploring similarities and differences of injured and involved partners. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 48(2), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12538

Mitchell, E. A., Brown, K. S., Spencer, J., & Harris, K. (2026). Staying together after infidelity: An exploration of the decision-making process of recovery from the perspective of the injured partner. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 52(1), e70110. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.70110

Roos, L. G., O’Connor, V., Canevello, A., & Bennett, J. M. (2019). Post-traumatic stress and psychological health following infidelity in unmarried young adults. Stress and Health, 35(4), 468–479. https://doi.org/10.1002/smi.2880

World Health Organization. (2024). Clinical descriptions and diagnostic requirements for ICD-11 mental, behavioural and neurodevelopmental disorders. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240077263

Yalçın, M. A., & Yavuz Güler, Ç. (2026). Post-infidelity interventions in couple therapy: A systematic thematic synthesis of change processes across therapeutic approaches. The American Journal of Family Therapy. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2026.2701676

Psychological Encyclopedia