Rebuilding Trust After Infidelity: A Guide Using the Gottman Approach and EFT

Infidelity can be one of the most challenging experiences a couple can face. Rebuilding trust in the aftermath of such a breach is a complex process that requires dedication, open communication, and professional guidance. In this blog post, we'll explore how the Gottman Method and Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) can be powerful tools in the journey towards healing and rebuilding trust.

Understanding the Impact of Infidelity

Before embarking on the path of rebuilding trust, it's crucial to acknowledge the profound impact of infidelity on both partners. The betrayed partner often experiences feelings of betrayal, loss, and intense emotional pain. The unfaithful partner may grapple with guilt, shame, and remorse. These emotions are valid and need to be addressed with empathy and understanding.

The Gottman Method: Building a Foundation of Trust

1. Open Communication: The Gottman Method emphasizes the importance of open and honest communication. Both partners must be willing to express their feelings, concerns, and needs without fear of judgment or defensiveness.

2. Rebuilding Intimacy: Intimacy is not solely about physical closeness, but also about emotional connection. The Gottman Method encourages partners to engage in activities that foster emotional intimacy, such as sharing dreams, fears, and aspirations.

3. Re-establishing Rituals of Connection: Partners should identify and revive rituals that were once meaningful in their relationship. This could be anything from a weekly date night to morning walks together.

4. Trust-Building Behaviors: The unfaithful partner must demonstrate consistent, trust-building behaviors. This includes transparency, accountability, and a willingness to answer questions about the affair.

Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT): Healing Emotional Bonds

1. Creating a Secure Emotional Connection: EFT focuses on creating a safe and secure emotional bond between partners. Through guided conversations, couples learn to express their emotions and needs in a constructive manner.

2. Processing and Validating Emotions: Both partners need to acknowledge and validate each other's emotions. This helps create an environment where both individuals feel heard and understood.

3. Identifying Attachment Patterns: EFT helps couples recognize and understand their attachment patterns, which may contribute to relationship distress. By recognizing and addressing these patterns, couples can forge healthier connections.

4. Forgiveness and Letting Go: EFT assists couples in the process of forgiveness, which is essential for healing. Forgiveness doesn't mean condoning the infidelity, but rather, it signifies a willingness to move forward without holding onto resentment.

Combining Approaches for Maximum Impact

The power of combining the Gottman Method and EFT lies in their complementary nature. While the Gottman Method focuses on rebuilding trust through concrete actions and behaviors, EFT delves deep into the emotional landscape, facilitating healing from the inside out.

Remember, rebuilding trust after infidelity is a journey that requires time, patience, and professional guidance. Seeking the support of a trained therapist experienced in both the Gottman Method and EFT can provide the necessary tools and insights for a path towards healing, renewed intimacy, and a stronger, more resilient partnership.

Tips to Build Trust in Relationships

When you think of trust in relationships, you likely think of rebuilding after an incident where trust was challenged and/or lost. Some common reasons trust becomes an issue in relationships are dishonesty, unreliability, and betrayal. 

Let’s be PROACTIVE and focus on building a foundation of trust from the start of the relationship. To prevent the pitfalls of the issues listed above, here are four practical, concrete ways to establish trust and maintain it. 

BUILDING EVERYDAY TRUST

• Say what you mean and mean what you say. Your word is important, so it is important to match actions with words. An example of practicing this is honoring commitments. If you say, “I’ll be there to help you move on Saturday,” you should make sure to be there on Saturday. It is extremely easy to promise the world (especially in new relationships) because you care for the person. But you do MORE damage when you make promises that you can not keep. This is not to say that you are not allowed to change your mind about something. Just be sure to communicate this to your partner. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say allows your partner to know they can trust your words.

• Communicate your intentions clearly. Having effective and clear communication is important in maintaining a successful relationship professionally and with friends and family. It is just as important in romantic relationships. Your partner is NOT a mindreader, so state your intentions and state them often. An example of practicing this: if you want to do movie night on Wednesday, you communicate this with your partner. Another example is, if you are contemplating making major life changes in the future, inform your partner (not necessarily asking permission). Communicating your intentions keeps your partner informed of what you are thinking so they do not have to guess, make assumptions, and get caught off guard.

• Admit your mistakes. Reliability and accountability are important in all relationships. Your partner wants to know that you will admit when you have made a mistake! We all make them. Building trust within a relationship is taking accountability for your mistake, asking how you can make it better, and making a commitment that you will not make that particular mistake again (or at least making a plan to limit that particular mistake).

• Always tell the truth. This one may seem like a no-brainer, but you would be surprised how many good-hearted people lie. Good people lie to avoid conflict, to get out of situations, and to please the person in front of them. When you are dishonest about small things (think white lies), it makes it hard for others to trust you when it comes to bigger issues. An alternative to telling a white lie is allowing yourself time to think about the issue. “I’m not sure yet, can I get back to you?” or “I am feeling emotional about this topic, I would like to table it and come back when I am feeling more grounded” are better options than lying.  Always telling the truth is the first step in establishing everyday trust in relationships.

• BE CONSISTENTLY CONSISTENT

  These four practical tips to building trust in everyday relationships will help start your relationship off with a strong foundation.  If you are in a relationship now, I ask you to look inward and ask yourself if you are practicing these four tips. If you are not, pick one to actively work on. Practice the tip for two weeks before moving on to the next tip. Building trust is a marathon, not a sprint. Be patient and take your time. Your relationship will be better for it.

How Do Affairs Happen? (See the cascade of events that can lead to infidelity) PART 1

WHAT WENT WRONG?

It is hurtful and devastating when an affair shatters a relationship’s trusted stability. It leaves both partners to pick up the pieces before starting all over again, which is painful. One of the questions that plague partners recovering from an affair is “What went wrong?” Even when individuals and relationships are unique, is there a commonality across affairs?

Dr. John Gottman with Dr. Caryl Rusbult and Dr. Shirley Glass explained an affair as a cascade of steps that culminate in a transgression. It all starts with the bid for attention. If it sounds like a simplified excuse for an affair, it is not. When one can’t count on their partner to be available in their time of need, it leads to unfavorable comparisons, emotional distance, and eventual betrayal, if not the demise of love. Based on research, the steps that lead to betrayal (the Gottman-Rusbult-Glass Cascade) are as follows.

TURNING AWAY

Partners can make an emotional bid that is met with turning away or against instead of turning toward. Turning away would include ignoring or being preoccupied with something else while turning against would be a retort or a lash back. When “Would you like to plan for the weekend?” is met with silence or “Can’t you see that I am busy?” the bidding partner feels rejected and hurt. Over time repeated failed bids lead to reiterating the belief that “you are not there for me,” and trust associated with the partner starts to erode gradually. An anticipatory rejection starts to flood (stress) the bidding partner, making them feel vulnerable, insignificant, or unwanted.

NEGATIVITY AND AVOIDANCE

The bidding partner soon enters the negative absorbing state, which is the negative affect from past failed bids building up with every new failed bid. It gets easier to get into the negative state but challenging to exit, resulting in a persistent negative state of mind. Soon unheeded requests turn out to be stressful and pointless arguments. Therefore bidding partner suppresses feelings and needs, leading to avoidance of conflict and self-disclosure.

INVESTING LESS AND COMPARING MORE

When partners favorably evaluate the relationship compared to other alternatives, they are more likely to stay committed to the relationship, as Thibaut and Kelley suggest. Therefore, the unfavorable comparisons propel a relationship towards a lack of commitment and betrayal. The bidding partner starts negatively comparing the partner with a real or imaginary partner who would make them feel cherished. As approaching the partner with an emotional bid is found futile, bidding and investing in the partner reduces, while substituting begins.

FEELING LESS DEPENDENT AND MAKING FEWER SACRIFICES

As Rusbult notes, commitment is a gradual process of making a good comparison level for the relationship within alternatives. Similarly, the opposite process of un-commitment is a gradual process of damaging comparison levels with other options. Commitment leads people to make sacrifices while building interdependency. It also leads to disparaging alternatives in comparison to their partner. As reliability or dependability on the partner lessens, trust reduces. The partner opens up to others and engages in talks (or self-talks) that magnify the relationship’s negative qualities.

TRASHING VS. CHERISHING

As one maximizes the partner’s negative qualities, one also minimizes positive characteristics. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse (defensiveness, criticism, contempt, and stonewalling) become rampant. Dr. Gottman suggests that people committed to their relationship cherish their partner by reminiscing about the positives with gratitude, even when not together. An essential part of a relationship, cherishing and expressing gratitude, is replaced with trash-talking the partner (directly and in front of others).

RESENTMENT AND LONELINESS IN RELATIONSHIP

Gratitude for the partner becomes replaced with bitterness. Resentment seeps in with silent arguments such as feeling the partner is selfish and uncaring. There is loneliness enhanced with unfavorable comparisons like “my ex would have understood me better” or “my colleague is more there for me than my partner.” With loneliness, vulnerability to other relationships increases. The built-up resentment results in low sexual desire and impersonal sex. The refusal to have sex may result in the partner’s blaming, leading to further feelings of rejection, and the affair cascade intensifies.

IDEALIZING ALTERNATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

There is less dependency on a partner, less reliance on the relationship for meeting essential needs, less investment in the relationship while idealizing alternative relationships, and thinking fewer positive pro-relationship thoughts. Instead, anti-relationship thoughts take over like “maybe we will be better off without each other,” “it may be a relief to let go of the relationship than hold on,” etc. The window between the partners is replaced with a wall, as the window opens up to outsiders. Other harmless liaisons provide the safe house.

SECRETS AND CROSSING BOUNDARIES

Secrets begin with omission. The other patterns such as inconsistencies, lies, confidence violations follow. While in cherishing relationships, interactions with others that hurt the partner are avoided, in denigrating relationships, ties with others are sought to fill the prevailing emotional gaps. As the hiding increases with the partner, there is an active turning toward others, and at a vulnerable moment, boundaries are crossed, and actual betrayal unfolds.

As one partner goes through the cascade of betrayal, the other partner experiences the ground sinking beneath their feet. Trust is broken and, over time, may develop into Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Jinashree Rajendrakumar

References:

Gottman, J. (1995). Why Marriages Succeed or Fail: And How You Can Make Yours Last. Simon & Schuster.

Gottman, J. M. (2011). The science of trust: Emotional attunement for couples.

Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). The Natural Principles of Love. Journal of Family Theory and Review, 9(1), 7–26. doi: 10.1111/JFTR.12182

Gottman, J., & Gottman, J. (2017). Treating Affairs and Trauma. Unpublished manuscript,  Gottman Institute, Seattle, USA.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1986). Assessing the role of emotion in marriage. Behavioral Assessment.

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.2.221

Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (2002). A Two‐Factor Model for Predicting When a Couple Will Divorce: Exploratory Analyses Using 14‐Year Longitudinal Data*. Family Process, 41(1), 83–96. doi: 10.1111/J.1545-5300.2002.40102000083.X

Haan-Rietdijk, S. D., Gottman, J. M., Bergeman, C. S., & Hamaker, E. L. (2016). Get Over It! A Multilevel Threshold Autoregressive Model for State-Dependent Affect Regulation. Psychometrika, 81(1), 217–241. doi: 10.1007/S11336-014-9417-X

Hawkins, M. W., Carrere, S., & Gottman, J. M. (2002). Marital Sentiment Override: Does It Influence Couples’ Perceptions? Journal of Marriage and Family, 64(1), 193–201. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00193.x