New study shows romantic relationships can actually improve after the crisis of an affair

A recent study published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy explores the aftermath of infidelity, revealing that many couples motivated to heal are able to stay together. The research suggests that enduring love and formalized relationship status are the strongest predictors of whether a couple will preserve their bond after an affair. These findings offer a nuanced understanding of the various paths couples take toward reconciliation and relationship recovery.

Infidelity is widely recognized as one of the most destructive events a romantic relationship can endure. It often causes significant emotional distress, including feelings of betrayal, anxiety, and a profound loss of trust. The betrayed partner frequently experiences symptoms resembling trauma, while the unfaithful partner tends to feel deep shame and guilt.

To make sense of why some relationships survive this pain while others end, psychologists often look to attachment and commitment theories. Attachment theory suggests that people are driven by a fundamental need for emotional safety, meaning a betrayal disrupts a core sense of security. Commitment theory focuses on pragmatic investments, proposing that shared property, children, and relationship history create structural motivations to stay together.

Kathy Nickerson, a licensed clinical psychologist who provides resources at DrKathyNickerson.com, led the new research. She is also the author of the books The Courage to Stay: How to Heal From an Affair and Save Your Marriage and The Courage to Stay Workbook for Betrayed Partners.

“As a clinician, I have spent more than 25 years working with couples recovering from infidelity,” Nickerson said. “During that time, I noticed a striking disconnect between what many people believe about affairs and what I was observing in my office.”

Free daily newsletter

“Popular culture often portrays infidelity as the end of a relationship, evidence that the person who strayed never loved their partner, or proof that the relationship is beyond repair,” she added. “Yet many of the couples I worked with were choosing to stay together and, in some cases, were rebuilding meaningful and satisfying relationships.”

To bridge this gap between popular belief and clinical reality, the authors designed a large-scale investigation. “I wanted to better understand what actually happens after infidelity and which factors are associated with reconciliation,” Nickerson explained. “Together with my colleagues, including Dr. John Gottman, we designed this study to examine the experiences of more than 3,400 individuals impacted by infidelity.”

“Our goal was not to minimize the pain caused by affairs, but to better understand the realities of recovery and relationship preservation,” she noted.

The researchers recruited participants through the social media profiles of three mental health professionals who specialize in affair recovery. These professionals posted videos inviting their followers to complete an online questionnaire known as the Pathways Through Infidelity Survey. This survey gathered data on a wide range of factors, including the quality of the relationship before the affair, the emotional landscape during the affair, and post-discovery actions.

Two versions of the survey were distributed to capture both sides of the experience. One version was designed for individuals who had engaged in an affair, referred to as commitment-breaking partners. The other version was tailored for individuals whose partner had been unfaithful, termed betrayal-experiencing partners.

After cleaning the data to remove incomplete responses, the final sample included 3,429 respondents. The sample consisted of 1,151 commitment-breaking partners and 2,278 betrayal-experiencing partners. The participants were predominantly female, with about 74 percent identifying as women. Most respondents were between the ages of 40 and 49, college-educated, married, and had children.

To analyze the responses, the scientists used a data mining technique known as decision tree methodology. This statistical approach identifies patterns and predictors by splitting data into increasingly uniform groups based on different conditions. It functions much like a flowchart, revealing how different variables interact with one another to predict a specific outcome, such as staying together. This method allows researchers to observe complex, real-world decision paths without assuming that human behavior follows a simple straight line.

The analysis provided evidence that preserving the relationship is highly probable among individuals actively seeking information on affair recovery. “The biggest takeaway is that infidelity is far more complex than many people assume,” Nickerson said. “Contrary to popular belief, most participants in our study remained with their original partner after the affair.”

“We also found that many people who had affairs still loved their partner, regretted their behavior, and had no intention of leaving the relationship for the affair partner,” she added.

This high rate of relationship preservation stood out to the research team. Nickerson noted that “the proportion of couples who remained together after infidelity was higher than many people would expect.”

“Among those who had affairs, 76% reported ending the affair and remaining with their original partner,” she told PsyPost. “Similarly, 79% of betrayed partners reported they were still together.”

For the commitment-breaking partners, the strongest predictor of relationship preservation was experiencing persistent love for their original partner during the affair. The hindsight realization that they were not actually in love with the affair partner was the second strongest predictor. When a commitment-breaking partner still loved their spouse and did not fall in love with the affair partner, the reconciliation rate was 89 percent.

“Love for the original partner emerged as the strongest predictor of reconciliation among those who had affairs,” Nickerson said. “This finding challenges the common assumption that people who stray have stopped loving their partner.”

The emotional reality of an affair was also full of contradiction for many participants. “73% of those who had affairs reported feeling regret while the affair was still occurring,” Nickerson observed. “This suggests that many affairs involve internal conflict, guilt, and ambivalence rather than a simple search for a preferred partner.”

For the betrayal-experiencing partners, the formal status of the relationship was the most powerful predictor of staying together. Those who were married, engaged, or in long-term partnerships were significantly more likely to preserve the relationship compared to those who were just dating, divorced, or widowed. Following relationship status, the most helpful predictors were reparative actions taken by the unfaithful partner.

These reparative actions included offering reassurance, validating the betrayed partner’s feelings, showing affection, and answering questions about the affair. Another highly predictive action was completely blocking contact with the affair partner. When an unfaithful partner answered questions and cut off contact with the affair partner, 93 percent of married or engaged couples stayed together.

Perhaps the most counterintuitive finding involved how couples viewed their relationship afterward. “We were surprised that approximately 70% of straying partners and 36% of betrayed partners reported that their relationship was better after the affair,” Nickerson said. “This finding should be interpreted cautiously, but it highlights that some couples use the crisis of infidelity as an opportunity to address longstanding problems, improve communication, and create a stronger relationship.”

The study also highlighted several more complicated pathways to reconciliation. Some pathways were lengthy and involved negative behaviors that were eventually offset by positive ones. For example, if an unfaithful partner initially refused to answer questions but still showed affection and blocked the affair partner, the couple could still achieve a high reconciliation rate. In these cases, the unfaithful partner often compensated for their lack of transparency by taking on more household responsibilities or offering continuous emotional reassurance.

The study also provided evidence of some unexpected patterns regarding post-infidelity recovery. For instance, the researchers anticipated that a respondent’s personal history of childhood or adult trauma might influence their likelihood of staying in the relationship. However, the data showed no measurable effect of past trauma on relationship preservation. The scientists suggest that trauma might influence why an affair happens in the first place, but it does not directly dictate whether the couple will stay together afterward.

Another surprising finding involved the role of social support. For betrayal-experiencing partners, receiving more support from family and friends actually reduced the likelihood of preserving the relationship. The authors note that support networks often express protective outrage and encourage the betrayed partner to leave. This well-intentioned advice tends to amplify doubts about staying and reinforces social judgments that favor a breakup.

The researchers also found that complete truth-telling was not always an absolute requirement for couples to stay together. While receiving direct answers was part of a highly successful pathway to reconciliation, some couples managed to preserve their relationships even when full details were withheld. The scientists suggest that extreme factual completeness may sometimes worsen obsessive thinking for the betrayed partner, meaning that partial disclosure combined with strong emotional reassurance can also be an effective path forward for certain couples.

Age also played a specific role in certain decision pathways. For older adults, particularly those over the age of 60, the likelihood of preserving the relationship remained high even when the recovery process was difficult. The researchers suggest that older individuals might place a higher value on the stability, shared history, and companionship of their long-term partnerships. In contrast, individuals in their 40s were somewhat more likely to separate if trust felt irreparably damaged.

Overall, the findings paint a hopeful picture for couples willing to do the work. “Another important takeaway is that recovery is possible,” Nickerson stated. “While affairs can be deeply traumatic, our findings suggest that many couples are able to rebuild trust, improve communication, and preserve their relationship. Healing is not guaranteed, but it appears to be far more common than most people realize.”

While the study offers a detailed look at post-infidelity relationships, it contains a few limitations. The participants were recruited from social media accounts dedicated to relationship healing. This means the sample consists of individuals who were already highly motivated to recover, so the high reconciliation rates found in this group do not apply to the general population.

“This was a cross-sectional study, which means we captured participants’ experiences at a single point in time,” Nickerson noted. “We cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships or determine how experiences changed over time.”

“The sample was also recruited through social media channels focused on affair recovery, which may have attracted individuals who were actively seeking healing or reconciliation,” she explained. “As a result, our findings may not generalize to every person who experiences infidelity.”

Because healing is a long process, many respondents were still in the middle of it. “Additionally, many participants were still relatively early in the recovery process, so their perspectives may continue to evolve,” she added.

The sample also lacked demographic diversity, with men and people of color being underrepresented. The length and emotional weight of the survey led to a high dropout rate, meaning that those who completed it might possess unique characteristics or a stronger commitment to their relationship than those who quit partway through. The study also relied on a simple yes-or-no measure for relationship preservation, an approach that oversimplifies the complex reality of couples who might feel their status is complicated or temporary.

Future research should aim to capture a broader and more diverse segment of the general public. “One of my long-term goals is to continue challenging oversimplified narratives about infidelity and replace them with data-driven understanding,” Nickerson said. “Infidelity is often discussed in highly polarized ways, but the reality is much more nuanced.”

To build on this foundation, scientists need to track couples as their situations unfold. “I would love to see more longitudinal research that follows couples over time and examines which interventions, behaviors, and therapeutic approaches are most helpful during affair recovery,” she noted. “I am particularly interested in understanding how trust is rebuilt and which factors best predict long-term relationship satisfaction in couples impacted by infidelity.”

For the research team, providing a platform for these couples was a major priority. “One of the things I am most proud of is that this study gives voice to a population that is often misunderstood,” Nickerson shared. “People impacted by infidelity are frequently told what they should do, how they should feel, or what their future will look like.”

“Our goal was not to tell people what choices to make, but to better understand their lived experiences,” she concluded. “Ultimately, I hope this research helps clinicians, researchers, and the general public approach infidelity with greater curiosity, compassion, and nuance.”

The study, “Should I Stay or Should I Go After Infidelity: Pathways to Relationship Preservation After an Affair Amongst Individuals Accessing Social Media Contents on Post-Infidelity Recovery and Reconciliation,” was authored by Kathleen Nickerson, Benjamin Rein, John Gottman, Rebecca Stone, Rece Davies, Mila Petrova, and Ariana L. Johnson.