THE SCIENCE AND CREATION OF

FIDELITY AND INFIDELITY

 WE NEED A SCIENCE OF FIDELITY TO
UNDERSTAND INFIDELITY
• You cannot develop a science of infidelity without
also understanding the science of fidelity, loyalty,
continuing love, and trust.
• Therefore we must understand how couples build
(or erode) TRUST
• Therefore, we must understand how couples
either build LOYALTY or how they build BETRAYAL
• We must understand the principles of INTIMATE
TRUST, lasting romance, passion, and love, as well
as their erosion.
 TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WE DEFINED
AND VALIDATED THREE METRICS:

• The TRUST METRIC

• The FAIRNESS METRIC, and
• The BETRAYAL METRIC
• All three METRICS need to be
considered in the equation for life-
long committed fidelity and
romance
 LOVE IN A LIFETIME HAS THREE
STAGES

• STAGE 1: Falling in love: limmerance

• STAGE 2: Building trust
• STAGE 3: Building commitment and loyalty
 STAGE 1: The Physiology of Falling In Love– Only
Certain People Can Trigger the Limmerance Cocktail
Cascade – and it’s a complex constellation.
• DHEA (dehydro-epi- • Estrogen, softness, receptivity
androsterone), natural • Testosterone, aggressive sexual
amphetamine high, readiness desire, lust, horny-ness,
for sex; roaming for new sex;
• Phereomones, sex scents, smell • Serotonin, emotional
and attraction; sensitivity, low irritability;
• Oxytocin, touch, s/he feels just • Dopamine, excitement,
right to hold, the cuddle pleasure, motivation, risk
hormone, bonding, also taking, anticipation of reward;
reduces fear and reduces good • Progesterone, sedating, can be
judgment; calming, needs inhibition;
• PEA (phenyl-ethyl-amine), • Prolactin, reduces aggression,
spikes at ovulation – regulates increases nurturance;
approach and romance,
hormone of love at first sight, • Vasopressin, monogamy
highs of limmerance; molecule, aggressive
possessiveness in males.
5
THERE ARE ONLY SOME PEOPLE WHO
QUALIFY IN EACH STAGE
• Only some people will be selected by our bodies
(Kahneman “System 1”) as potential candidates for a
relationship.
• STAGE 1: The cocktail cascade of falling in love in our body
We Ignore the red flags – Oxytocin (after orgasms) creates
bad judgment
• STAGE 2: As the relationship proceeds the poor judgment
haze produced by oxytocin, dopamine, and testosterone
FADES, and
• We begin seeing the red flags (Kahneman System 2) and
• Then we attempt to build TRUST
PHASE 2: BUILDING TRUST

ESSENTIAL QUESTION IS:

Are You There For Me?

7
PHASE 3 OF LOVE: BUILDING LOYALTY VS.
BETRAYAL
• THE LOYALTY QUESTIONS ARE:
– Will you make a life-long commitment to
our relationship?
– Will you put a wide fence between
yourself and other potential relationships?
– Will you sacrifice and invest to build and
maintain this relationship?
MAIN RESEARCH QUESTION: How
do couples build or erode trust?
10
LET’S NOW TALK ABOUT TRUST,
COMMITMENT, & BETRAYAL
 TRUST IS VERY IMPORTANT,
BUT WHAT IS “TRUST”?
• Is trust a trait, a belief, a value?
• does trust = morality?
• “social capital” on trust research never
defined trust
• If you can’t define it, you can’t change it
• Smaller social unit, one interaction at a
time
• Use game theory to understand trust
 GAME THEORY CAN BE A GENERAL
THEORY OF ALL SOCIAL
INTERACTIONS
• If I smile at my wife and she smiles back at me
• I may highly value that return smile, and
assign a high payoff to that return smile,
thinking, “What a great smile! I am one lucky
guy to have her as my wife.”
• Or I may be disappointed by the return smile,
assigning a low payoff to that smile, thinking,
“I think I could do better elsewhere.”
 GAME THEORY CAN SUGGEST:
• How to create trust, betrayal, and
fairness metrics,
• Can be computed in any interaction.
• Not as traits, but at a micro level, using
temporal dynamics.
 Game Theory Assumes Players’
Rational Self-Interest
• Each player seeks to maximize his or her
payoffs in any transaction
• Players select the strategy that maximizes
their own payoffs.
• Harold Kelley’s simple experiment (1979):
100 couples rated how much they valued
housework.
• Let’s look at one couple, Al and Jenny
A YOUNG COUPLE RATES HOUSEWORK
(0 = BAD TO 10 = GOOD)
WITH THE SELF-INTEREST METRIC, JENNY WILL TRY TO
CHANGE AL AND AL WILL TRY TO CHANGE JENNY
• Therefore, Jenny & Al will fight tooth and nail about
housework. Typical of unhappily married couples.
BUT IF WE DEFINE TRUST AS THE METRIC IN WHICH:
• Jenny is trying to maximize Al’s payoffs, and Al is also trying to
maximize Jenny’s payoffs,
• Then they will each decide to clean together, logically arriving
at the maximum payoff for both. (THE “NASH EQUILIBRIUM”)
CONCLUSION IS:
• TRUST = HAVING OUR PARTNER’S BACK, NOT JUST OUR OWN.
• Can we generalize Kelly’s work as a game theory approach for
all interactions? Answer is YES WE CAN! HERE’S HOW –
GOTTMAN-LEVENSON PARADIGM:
GOTTMAN-LEVENSON PARADIGM
• Over the last 38 years, produced measures that
predict divorce or stability with over 90% accuracy,
replicated in original study & 6 separate longitudinal
replications (one as long as 20 years).
• Predicted successful or unsuccessful transitions (to
parenthood and retirement);
• Generalized to gay and lesbian couples;
• Produced a theory of relationship success;
• Produced a therapy validated in 4 randomized clinical
trials for: distressed couples, the transition to
parenthood, successful parenting via the emotion
coaching of children, and the treatment of
situational domestic violence.
The Levenson-Gottman Video-Recall
Rating dial Gives Us the Payoffs
CAN ALSO VALIDLY CODE AFFECTIVE BEHAVIOR
 RATING DIAL GIVES VALID PAYOFFS
 Predicts changes in marital satisfaction over a 3-year
period
 Coding rating dial predicts divorce or stability, with
behavior 88% accuracy
 Levenson & Ruef: With use of rating dial, found a
physiological substrate for empathy.

CONCLUSION:
RATING DIAL IS A GOOD UTILITY FUNCTION
DEFINING “PAYOFF” BETWEEN COUPLES
 WE NOW CAN APPLY GAME THEORY
TO ANY INTERACTION

• Husband behavior as rows of table

• Wife behavior as columns of table
• Entries in table are average rating dial = Payoff
numbers for each partner for that behavior
exchange
• And entries can also be how OFTEN this
behavior exchange happened.
THE ANSWER: Use Hidden Markov Model Analysis –Negative affect
is an absorbing state for unhappy couples: the probability of entry
(thick line) exceeds the probability of exit (thin line)

NEGATIVITY NEUTRAL OR POSITIVITY

 THE ROACH MOTEL MODEL OF UNHAPPY
MARRIAGE: “THEY CHECK IN BUT THEY DON’T
CHECK OUT”
• For unhappy couples, negative affect is like stepping into a
quicksand bog.
• Negative affect is called a “Markov absorbing state,” but
only for unhappy couples.
• Repair does not work for them. REPAIR IS CENTRAL TO
THE MASTERS OF RELATIONSHIPS (also Gianino &
Tronick)
• Happily married couples are able to exit this negative state
because they HAVE A HIGH TRUST METRIC
• THEY do effective repairs, like taking responsibility for
even a part of the problem.
 HOW DO COUPLES BUILD A HIGH TRUST METRIC?
THE MAJOR QUESTION IS: “Are you there for me?”
• Trust is built in small moments via a social skill called,
“attunement”
• “attunement” = Fully “processing” a negative affect event
• Discovered this in research on Emotion coaching for kids
• Tested in USA, Australia, Korea. Builds trust with kids, creates
secure attachment
• Dan Yoshimoto’s attunement interview for couples – extended
Emotion Coaching to couples via the “meta-emotion”
interview
• Measures how much partners “there for one another,”
particularly during moments of negative affect.
 THE BIG TRUST QUESTION:

The biggest issue in all marital conflicts

just a few months after the wedding
THE QUESTION OF TRUST OPENS UP LIKE A
LARGE FAN

WILL YOU BE THERE

FOR ME?
 ARE YOU THERE FOR ME?
CAN I TALK TO YOU? WILL YOU LISTEN AND
EMPATHIZE?

• When I’m sad?

• When you have hurt me?
• When I’m angry with you?
• When I’m hurt by your mother?
• When I’m disappointed?
• When I’m horny?
• When I’m just upset?
• When I’m lonely?
• When I’m feeling trapped?
• When I’m confused?
IF ANSWER IS “YES” THEN THEY BUILD TRUST -
FULLY PROCESS A NEGATIVE EVENT VIA
“ATTUNEMENT”
A = Awareness Attunement leads to:
 Fully being able to Process
T = Turning Toward Negativity (e.g., Anger &
Sadness)
T = Tolerance
 No Zeigarnik Effect
U = Understanding  No negative attributions of
“selfishness”
N = Nondefensive  No Markov absorbing state
Responding  No negative Oral History
E = Empathy Story of Us and Partner’s
Character
WHEN ONE PARTNER TURNS AWAY FROM THE OTHER,
(DISMISSING THAT PARTNER’S EMOTIONS), THEN WE
GET THE ZEIGARNIK EFFECT
 ZEIGARNIK EFFECT: WE RECALL UNFINISHED EVENTS
BETTER THAN FINISHED EVENTS (RATIO = 1.9,
MORTON DEUTCH).
• Rumination on unprocessed, unfinished negative
affect events.
 “NOT FULLY PROCESSED” negative event = a “stone in
one’s shoe.”
 “FULLY PROCESSED” = Can talk about all negative
affects without getting back into it -UNDERSTANDING
 TRUST IS ALSO BUILT VIA ATTUNEMENT
IN SIX “EMOTIONAL COMMAND” SYSTEMS
Turning toward partner within each system (from Jaak Panksepp’s
Affective Neuroscience, modified):
• 1. The Explorer (Seeking, anticipating, adventure, learning
together) dopamine. In humans a consequence of this system is
The Philosopher and Storyteller (Building shared meaning)
• 2. The Sentry (Safety, reducing fear) Low Epinephrine
• 3. The Nest Builder (Emotional closeness – giving & receiving
care) Oxytocin, Vasopressin, Cortisol; Panic and Grief are its
opposites
• 4. The Jester (Humor, surprise, and play) dopamine, Serotonin
• 5. The Commander-in-Chief (Power, dominance, anger, rage,
fairness, equality) Epinephrine, Norepinephrine, Cortisol, low
Serotonin.
• 6. The Sensualist (Sensuality, orgasm) Testosterone.
 ATTACHMENT THEORY
• It is a very successful theory.
• But it only considers two of the six emotional command
systems (The Sentry & The Nest Builder)
• The theory assumes that if people feel safe and bonded, all
the other systems will be fine.
• Couple will be able to play, have adventures, have great sex
and passion, and have no existential vacuum (Viktor Frankl)
• We think this assumption is not correct.
• If we’re right then the couples’ therapist needs to be a
master of ALL six emotional command systems, including
The Jester, the Explorer (and the Philosopher), The
Commander-in-Chief, and the Sensualist.
• Our therapy has included all 6 emotional command
systems.
 TRUST IS BUILT BY: (1) BEING THERE FOR ONE
ANOTHER AND (2) REPAIRING COMMUNICATION
WHEN IT GETS MESSED UP
• % time we are emotionally available, even generously, is 50%,
• Probability both people emotionally available at the same time
is 25% (assuming independence of these events)
• So 75% is ripe ground for miscommunication, need for REPAIR
• CONCLUSION: REGRETTABLE INCIDENTS ARE INEVITABLE, SINCE
EMOTIONAL CONNECTION AND EMPATHY ARE RELATIVELY
INFREQUENT
• Negative affect just “happens.” So REPAIR IS ESSENTIAL for
attachment security – Tronick & Gianino in moms and babies.
• More words for negativity than positivity in human languages.
Negative affect stops you, positive affect accelerates you. We
have to process negativity. Negative affect contains longing.
 “BEING THERE” FOR PARTNER IN THE
FACE OF NEGATIVE AFFECT.

• Our hypothesis: Bonding is created by turning

toward partner’s negative (or positive) affect
• Fully processing conflict or failures to connect
in any of the six emotional command systems
has even MORE POWER TO CREATE TRUST
than turning toward in any of the command
systems.
 BONDING IN THE CONTEXT OF NEGATIVE
AFFECT IS POWERFUL. EXAMPLES ABOUND:
• Yes, orgasms do build trust, but not like:
– Exploring in the face of fear (climbing mountains,
space exploration)
– Turning toward a neighbor in the face of natural
disasters (Joplin, Missouri tornado)
– Battle buddies in war. Which is why coming home
after deployment conflict seems so trivial, and
connection to family seems so bland.
– Orgasm pales in comparison to this kind of
bonding.
MAJOR RESEARCH FINDING ON TRUST: ATTUNEMENT
IS BUILT PRIMARILY BY PROCESSING EVERYDAY
FAILURES TO COMMUNICATE
• Couples may argue about nothing. A regrettable
incident just happens.
• If it is fully processed, it is forgotten.
• If it is not .fully processed it becomes a stone in
the shoe (Zeigarnik effect).
• In our therapy, we use the Gottman Aftermath Kit
(available on www.Gottman.Com ) to fully
process a regrettable incident that has happened
in the past.
• William Faulkner: “The past is never dead. In fact,
it isn’t even past.”
 CAN WE CHANGE DISTRUST TO TRUST? THE
CAUSE-EFFECT EMPIRICAL QUESTION
YES WE CAN.
• Randomized clinical trial with 100 couples. (Babcock, Gottman
Gottman, & Ryan, 2013 - J. of Family Therapy).
• The Gottmans’ two-day “The Art & Science of Love” workshop
significantly increases trust compared to a control group.
• We get significant increases in the TRUST METRIC by
increasing EMOTIONAL ATTUNEMENT in couples.
• But it’s hard to get trust when relationships have a large
power differential and they seem unfair. SO NEED TO BUILD A
FAIRNESS METRIC.
 THE FAIRNESS METRIC
• Gottman & Murray mathematical modeling of
couples’ interaction was about POWER (See
book, The Mathematics of Marriage)
• TRUST occurs more easily when there is EQUAL
POWER BETWEEN PARTNERS (our studies of
same-sex and heterosexual relationships)
• The fairness metric was developed via math
modeling of time-series data (2002, Gottman et
al.,The Mathematics of Marriage, MIT Press)
 60
Time Series
40

20
Behavior

-20
H behavior
-40 W behavior

-60

30

20
Perception

10

-10

-20 W perception
H perception
-30

60
W physiology
40
H physiology
Physiology

20

-20

-40

-60
The BETRAYAL METRIC
 DEFINING THE BETRAYAL METRIC
• Betrayal takes many forms, e.g., affairs, addictions,
deception, lying, broken promises.
• But, betrayal begins in an any interaction that becomes a
power struggle, meaning:
• A “zero sum” game metric
– A win-lose conflict
– My gain is my partner’s loss
– Partner’s gain is my loss
• Betrayal metric = extent to which our rating dials
negatively cross- correlated across partners.
 10
8
Rating Dial

6
4
2
0

0 50 100 150

Time (6 sec av)

 THE BETRAYAL METRIC WORKS
• OUR 20-YEAR LONGITUDINAL STUDY: Predicts early
husband death. 58% versus 22% for cooperative
metric, controlling for husband age and initial health.
• Our second study showed that this dynamic of earlier
husband death is likely to be related to chronic
elevations in baseline blood velocity of husband and
wife, Higher myocardial contractility.
• Men get less protective blood pressure reduction effect
from Oxytocin (the hormone of bonding).
• Perhaps because men also secrete Vasopressin to ward
off rivals after an orgasm (male rat studies).
 USING GAME THEORY WE CAN NOW
COMPUTE VALID TRUST, FAIRNESS, &
BETRAYAL METRICS
Trust Metric = my partner behaves to
maximize my payoffs.
Fairness Metric = balance in power and
emotional inertia.
Betrayal Metric = win/lose zero-sum game
for unhappily married couples. So loyalty =
cooperative rather than zero-sum rating
dials.
Using Betrayal Metric we get our FINAL
SURPRISING RESEARCH FINDING:

THE GERM OF DISTRUST IS NOT THE

SAME AS THE GERM OF BETRAYAL
 What begins the cascade toward
betrayal?
ANSWER:
• NEGATIVE COMPARISONS
 BETRAYAL HAPPENS WHILE TURNING AWAY
FROM PARTNER’S BID WITH A “NEGATIVE
COMP”
• Our theory: the germ of betrayal is turning away from a bid,
Plus NEGATIVE COMP
• What is a NEGATIVE COMP? Judging a behavior exchange by
comparing it UNFAVORABLY with real or imagined alternatives
• So the “GERM of betrayal” - while turning away from a
partner’s need,
– NEGATIVE COMP is made: “I CAN DO BETTER”
• Case of the man with a wife and mistress. Wife was “too
needy” mistress was always so “positive”. Wife was with his
baby, “very whiney”
 EXAMPLE OF COUPLE
JOHN SAW IN THERAPY

• John was their 6th therapist.

• They came into the 5th session and said this was their
last session
• Asked them, “Help me understand why the therapy
had failed.”
• We processed an argument they had.
 THEIR REGRETTABLE INCIDENT

• He met a woman at a party. His wife was tired & wanted

to leave. He told his wife he was more attracted to that
OTHER woman than to her.
• They had a fight. She thought “I’d be happier with a more
mature man.”
• Both turned away from each other with a NEGATIVE
COMP.
• John understood why therapy didn’t work for them.
• Alice in Wonderland & Commitment
• 2 months later, still together, working on “unconditional
commitment”
 NEGATIVE COMPs BEGIN A CASCADE TOWARD
BETRAYAL

• NEGATIVE COMPs first measured successfully by the late

& great Caryl Rusbult (first proposed by Thibaut & Kelley,
1959)
• Rusbult’s INVESTMENT & COMMITMENT MODEL, the
only work able to PREDICT sexual infidelity in dating
couples. Three decades of research.
• All other studies start with infidelity and interview post
hoc.
• But people’s retrospective accounts are highly flawed.
• We present ourselves as innocent (Karl Heider; Tavris &
Aronson – Mistakes Were Made, But Not By Me)
 CONCLUSION: THERE ARE ORDERLY,
DETERMINISTIC, GLACIAL CASCADES
TOWARD EITHER BETRAYAL OR LOYALTY

Next slides will describe our

hypothesized 24-step Cascade
toward Betrayal
 THE 24 STEP GOTTMAN- RUSBULT-GLASS (GRG)
CASCADE TOWARD BETRAYAL
1. Turning away/dismissing, or turning against, few
attunements
2. NEGATIVE COMPs accompany turning away/against.
3. Not “there for me” becomes the common event (turning
toward 33% vs 86%)
4. Flooding/ physio arousal occurs whenever S#!T happens.
Hypervigilance begins.
5. Conflict becomes a Markov absorbing state. Probability of
entry to negativity is greater than probability of exit. Repair
does not work.
6. Couple avoids conflict. Suppresses negative affect. Has
Blowups (Unprocessed S#!T).
 CASCADE TOWARDS BETRAYAL
(CONT.)
7. Couple avoids Self-disclosure. Has secrets from
partner. deception begins.
8. Bidding for attunement declines.
9. Invests less in relationship.
10. Less dependency on relationship to get needs
met. Confiding in others, not partner
11. Less sacrificing for relationship. SUBSTITUTING
(find what’s not there elsewhere)
 CASCADE TOWARD BETRAYAL (CONT.)
12. Maximizing partner’s negative traits in one’s mind.
defensiveness begins.
13. Minimizing partner’s positive traits. Criticism begins. Takes
no responsibility for problems.
14. “Trashing” versus “cherishing”. Contempt begins. Shared
Meaning erodes.
15. Trashing partner to others. Contempt builds. deception
builds. Story of Us gets neg.
16. Builds resentment vs. gratitude. Sees partner as SELFISH.
Paradoxically, trusts PARTNER less. Stonewalling starts.
17. Loneliness in relationship builds. Vulnerability to other
relationships starts.
18. Partner refusing sex becomes punishing. Little sex, romance,
fun, play, adventure, courtship. No sexuality love maps, no
dream love maps. Low sexual desire. Porn use may increase.
 CASCADE TOWARDS BETRAYAL
(CONT.)
19. Fewer pro-relationship cognitions. More anti-relationship
cognitions.
20. No longer denigrating alternative relationships. Starts
innocent new secret liasons.
21. Little fence between self & others. Reverses “walls &
windows” (Shirley Glass)
22. Keeping more and more secrets from partner. deception
increases.
23. Actively turning toward others for needs. Seeking what’s not
in relationship.
24. Crossing boundaries. Real betrayal unfolds. Deception
becomes way of life. Risky.
 MONOGAMY
• Anthropologists: Monogamy invented about
20 - 40,000 years ago by Homo Sapiens;
• A new reproductive strategy: Invest a lot in
fewer offspring, longer period of dependency,
cooperative hunter-gatherer (see Mothers and
Others, by Hrdy);
• There are three types of monogamy: Social,
Reproductive, Sexual.
Three kinds of monogamy: The evidence is
we are overwhelmingly monogamous
• United Nations World Fertility Report (2003): 89% of all
people get married by the age of 49. Social monogamy
overwhelmingly the norm in our species. (May be serial.)
• In humans extra-pair paternity studies done in six cultures
(USA, France, Switzerland, UK, Mexico, and the Yanomamo
Indians), two review papers reviewing 28 studies found 96
to 98% genetic monogamy. (May be serial.)
• USA rates in convenience samples vary from 15 to 43% of
men and 10 to 15% of women being sexually unfaithful
throughout their marriages. In one study of 50 pre-
industrial cultures there was no significant difference
between men and women in the amount of sexual
infidelity. Majority of humans are sexually monogamous.
 THE VAST ADVANTAGES OF COMMITTED
SOCIAL AND SEXUAL MONOGAMY
• LIVE LONGER. ≈ 10 YEARS (Friedman et al; Berkman &
Syme Lois Verbrugge; Cacioppo’s work on loneliness.)
• STAY PHYSICALLY HEALTHIER. (Many review papers.
Burman & Margolin).
• RECOVER FROM ILLNESSES FASTER.
• BECOME WEALTHIER. (Steve Nock)
• CHILDREN DO MUCH BETTER (into their 50s).
• BRAIN COMFORT DURING FEAR. Jim Coan’s hand-
holding studies with married people. Gays and
lesbians get no shut down of fear system unless they
consider themselves to be married.
 Random Facts about Affairs
• 70 percent of married women and 54 percent of
married men say that they did not know of their
spouses' extramarital activity. Adultery statistics state
that 85% of women who feel their lover is cheating
are correct. 50% of men who feel their lover is
cheating are right. The first clue is seldom obvious.
Typically, it's a "feeling" that something is different.
• 90 percent of Americans say that they believe
adultery is morally wrong.
 HOW OFTEN DO AFFAIRS HAPPEN? REPORTS
VARY WIDELY
– 22 % of men and 14% of women say that they have had
sex outside their marriages (Dec. 21, 1998 report in USA
Today on a national study by the University of California,
San Francisco).
– According to surveys, 10% of extramarital affairs last one
day, 10% last more than one day but less than a month,
50% last more than a month but less than a year, and
30% last two or more years. Few extramarital affairs last
more than four years.
– Numbers from Playboy Magazine: 2 out of 3 women and
3 out of 4 men admit they have sexual thoughts about co-
workers. 86% of men and 81% of women routinely flirt
with the opposite sex.
• Internet Pornography – Now A Royal Road to Infidelity
 HOW MANY AFFAIRS BECOME
LASTING RELATIONSHIPS?
• Those who divorce rarely marry the person with whom
they are having the affair.
• Dr. Jan Halper’s study of successful men (executives,
entrepreneurs, professionals) found that very few men
who have affairs divorce their wives and marry their
lovers. Only 3 percent of the 4,100 successful men
surveyed eventually married their lovers.
• The late Dr. Frank Pittman (an expert on treating
affairs) found that the divorce rate among those who
do marry their lovers is 75 percent. Major reason for
the divorce? They don’t trust their partner.
ATONE-ATTUNE-ATTACH THERAPY:
HEALING FROM AN AFFAIR
(Now planned: Randomized clinical trial in
collaboration with Dr. Paul Peluso)
 PRELIMINARIES
• ASSESSMENT: Gottman Questionnaire package,
Conjoint interview with couple’s narrative, Oral
History Interview, conflict discussion, plus individual
interviews. No individual secrets kept.
• Make sure affair is really over, or don’t do therapy.
• Set up rules for interaction at home about the affair
• May need individual sessions with betrayer about
grief in losing affair partner. Express empathy.
• Using SRH diagram, outline the overall therapy to
clients. Discuss building Marriage #2.
 PHASE 1: ATONE
• THE ATONEMENT DIALOGUE (Peggy Vaughan’s
study – askpeggy.com; Shirley Glass’s work)
• Explain and explore the hurt partner’s PTSD.
• Hurt partner asks questions, betrayer practices
transparent, non-defensive empathic listening.
• Betrayer needs to express deep remorse.
• do not examine WHY the affair happened in
this phase. It risks blaming the victim.
Encourage betrayer to avoid sex-related
questions that create ruminations about sex
details.
• Establish transparency, and verification.
LISTENING TO HURT PARTNER’S
EMOTIONS
• Expressions of negative emotions are okay, but
not the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.
• Help hurt partner to only discuss affair in
session at first. Otherwise, likely to escalate.
• In between sessions, hurt partner can do
“feeling downloads” on therapist’s voicemail or
in journal.
• Consider using Gottman-Rapoport blueprint as
a new format for communication (with
clipboards)
 GOTTMAN-RAPOPORT BLUEPRINT –
Replaces Active Listening
Take turns as speaker & listener:
Rapoport: Postpone persuasion until
each partner can summarize other to
his or her satisfaction.
SPEAKER bullet points:
• 1. No blaming, no YOU
statements
• 2. I-STATEMENTS How you feel
about a specific incident;
• 3. POSITIVE NEED: What you
want, prefer, and need. Behind
every negative affect there is a
longing, a wish, a hope, a recipe;
• Avoid physiologically FLOODING
the Listener.
LISTENER bullet points:
• 1. Take notes;
• 2. Summarize partner’s position
and affect;
• 3. Validate with empathy.
Stay in WHAT’S THIS? Mode instead
of WHAT THE HELL IS THIS? Mode.
Rapoport Assumption of Similarity –
change attributions.
Now use Persuasion & Problem-
solving. Compromise using the 2-
oval method.
 EXPLORE ATONEMENT NEEDS
• What kind of atonement does hurt partner
need from betrayer partner?
• Going forward, what kind of transparency
does hurt partner need from betrayer
partner? (Maybe checking cell phone VM and
texting messages, e-mails, phone calls 24/7 if
one partner is traveling, receipts, etc.)
• Donald Baucom, Doug Snyder recommend
hiring a detective in some cases.
 TOOLS FOR ATONE PHASE
• Gottman-Rapoport Conflict Blueprint
• Dealing With Flooding
• Antidotes for the 4 Horsemen (Criticism,
Contempt, defensiveness and
Stonewalling)
• Questions Regarding Affair (created by
betrayed partner)
 PHASE 2: ATTUNE
• Explore why the affair happened using the
Gottman-Rusbult-Glass Cascade model
• Understand both partner’s distress within
marriage
• Work on conflict management
• Learn how to recognize and turn towards bids
during “sliding door” moments. May be one-
sided, as betrayed person needs time to
rebuild trust in order to turn towards partner
• Process regrettable incidents using “Aftermath
Of a Fight or Regrettable Incident Exercise,
and dan Wile Intervention.
 PHASE 2: ATTUNE: (CONT.)
• Discuss external stresses using the Stress-
Reducing Conversation Exercise
• Set up weekly 1-hour State of the Union
meetings
• Ritualize cherishing and gratitude, rather than
trashing and resentment
• Bring up problems by saying, “Here’s what I do
need,” rather than, “Here’s what I don’t need.”
 TOOLS FOR ATTUNE PHASE

• Expressing Needs Exercise

• Stress-Reducing Conversation
• State Of The Union Meeting
• Turn Toward Bids
• Aftermath of a Fight or Regrettable
Incident Intervention
• Dan Wile Intervention
CASE EXAMPLE: DAVID AND DIANE
TRANSCRIPT OF AFTERMATH OF A
FIGHT OR REGRETTABLE INCIDENT
 DAVID AND DIANE

• David wealthy businessman

• Diane stay at home Mom
• Married 27 years
• Three kids, two older and out of home,
one special needs, home-schooled.
 DAVID’S HISTORY
• Poor family
• Dad alcoholic and emotionally abusive
• Mom passive
• Determined he’d succeed
 DIANE’S HISTORY
• Middle class family, relatively healthy
• She was one of 4 sisters
• She was the “weird one,” decided when
10 to learn about Buddhism, and did.
 COUPLE’S HISTORY
• Married after college
• Had kids in quick succession
• Last child had learning disabilities,
troubles with school, so Diane decided to
home school her.
• David worked very hard to advance
 COUPLE’S HISTORY (CONT.)
• David complained to friends about not
getting enough attention at home.
• They introduced him to potential affair
partners, and encouraged him to play
around.
• He slept with several women, then had
“special” affair with Olivia.
 COUPLE’S HISTORY (CONT.)
• David denied all affairs.
• David spent Mother’s day with Olivia rather
than Diane.
• Eventually one of older kids saw e-mail
exchanges between David and Olivia, and
alerted Diane.
• Diane confronted David and he confessed.
(transcript)
 PHASE 3: ATTACH
• Use Love Maps and Open-Ended Question Card decks
to rebuild knowledge of one another.
• Encourage expression of fondness, admiration, and
appreciation. May be one-sided at first due to
betrayed partner’s fear of getting close again.
• Set up formal high cost for subsequent betrayals.
• Use Rituals Of Connection Intervention to create ways
of connecting that both partners can count on.
• Build pro-relationship language and thoughts and build
towards renewed commitment.
• Turn towards by sacrifice, mutual investment, and
effective interdependence.
 PHASE 3: ATTACH (CONT.)
• Learn the skills of intimate conversation using
GottSex Kit.
• Create personal sex and intimate trust using
GottSex Kit, with betrayed partner in charge
of timing.
• Re-build new shared meaning system.
• Meta-norms: include some significant others
in knowledge of repairing this relationship.
 MATERIALS FOR ATTACH PHASE
• Rituals of Connection Exercise
• Open-Ended Questions Exercise
• Fondness and Admiration Checklist
• Appreciation Checklist
 TOOLS FOR ATTACH PHASE (CONT.)
• GOTTSEX.COM
– A New View of What Sex Is
– The Skills of Intimate Conversation
– Building Sex Love Maps Of Partner
– Ritual for Initiating Sex and Saying No
– Ritual For Talking About Sex
– Salsa decks
– Romantic Things to Say during Sex
 DEBBIE AND JAKE: PRELIMINARIES
• Debbie’s Locke-Wallace, 11; Jake’s 87.
• Debbie’s Weiss Cerretto, 18; Jake’s 6
• Narrative:
Debbie confronted Jake many times; Jake denied
affairs
Debbie hired private detective.
Detective discovered J had prostitutes in 6 cities
plus one serious affair in Hong Kong.
Debbie had moved out day after detective’s
report.
 PRELIMINARIES (CONT.)
• Debbie confronted Jake with photos and e-
mails. Furious.
• Debbie and Jake owned jewelry business
together. Debbie filed for divorce.
• Debbie’s lawyer advised continued co-
ownership of business.
• Jake begged for one last try.
• Debbie contacted me.
 PRELIMINARIES (CONT.)
• All of Debbie’s SRH questionnaires extremely
negative, with friendship, romance and
passion, and shared meaning at 0, and conflict
scores all extremely high.
• Jake’s scores more moderate with average
scores on friendship, but also high conflict
scores, especially in Four Horsemen.
 TREATMENT PLAN
• Explained PTSD to Debbie and Jake
• Asked for commitment from Jake to hang in
there with Debbie’s questions, and to only tell
the truth.
• Asked Debbie for commitment to keep
discussions of affair in sessions and not
between them, with alternatives offered if
necessary (VM download).
• discussed SRH needs in building Marriage #2.
 PHASE 1: ATONEMENT
• For 20 sessions over 6 months, Debbie asked
questions and voiced feelings.
• Reviewed hundreds of e-mails, including those
between Jake and his friends prior to their
reunions in Las Vegas.
• Debbie expressed much pain and anger.
• Jake at times got defensive, was gently
supported by therapist to not do so.
 PHASE 1: ATONEMENT (CONT.)
• Debbie’s PTSD was severe at first with
nightmares, insomnia, persistent unwanted
thoughts and images, numbness altering with
explosive feelings, depression, and weight
loss.
• Gradually it lessened. Taught her progressive
relaxation and some visual imagery methods
to help with insomnia and anxiety.
 PHASE 1: ATONEMENT (CONT.)
• Deb’s attorney coached her to demand more
financially and materially.
• Deb decided to fire the attorney, but not drop
the divorce filed paperwork as yet.
• Turning Point: J had visual image of himself
hanging from street lamp – he interpreted its
meaning as his own self-destructiveness via
affairs and destroying his marriage.
 PHASE 1: ATONEMENT (CONT.)
• Jake begged for Debbie’s forgiveness. Asked
for Debbie to take him back.
• Debbie stated needs regarding time home
after dinner, date nights, vacation time.
• Debbie also asked for new ring and new
commitment.
• Jake agreed – they picked out ring together.
 PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT
• Debbie and Jake worked hard on conflict
blueprint.
• Debbie presented gridlocked problem of Jake
spending 3 hrs. at gym nightly after work.
• Debbie stated no point in moving home if Jake
still gone every evening.
• They did Dream-Within Conflict Intervention.
 PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.)
• Jake explained need to body-build, being 5’4” tall.
• Jake described bullying he endured.
• Jake also described physical abuse by his father.
• No tears from Jake, but Debbie cried in hearing details.
• Debbie described loneliness of dinners alone at night,
evenings alone, and emotional distance that resulted.
• Debbie detailed earlier loneliness in childhood with
isolated abusive parents and being only child, leaving
her vulnerable to rejection.
 PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.)
• Debbie and Jake compromised – Jake would
go to gym 3 eves/week and once on weekend.
• Debbie and Jake would go out to dinner twice
week to again connect with one another.
• Jake needed Debbie to be less critical of him
when she’s unhappy – Criticism shut him
down.
• Taught Gottman-Rapoport Blueprint.
 PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.)
• Jake needed to do buying trip.
• Since on these trips, Jake saw affair partners,
Debbie panicked.
• Jake agreed to Debbie’s right to call him 24/7.
• Jake agreed to nightly stress-reducing
conversations with Debbie.
• For end of his trip, they agreed to meet in
Mexico for week-long vacation.
 PHASE 2: ATTUNEMENT (CONT.)
• Day before Jake left, Debbie slipped into
escalated 4-Horsemen.
• Emergency session using Aftermath of a Fight
or Regrettable Incident Exercise.
• Debbie’s escalation explored vis-à-vis PTSD
triggers.
• Debbie agreed to weekly individual sessions
until joined Jake in Mexico.
 PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT
• Debbie moved back in with Jake post-Mexico.
• Debbie and Jake worked on Rituals of
Connection, including dinners, end-of-day
reunions, date nights, and strengthening sex
life.
• Debbie and Jake worked on Shared Meaning
system, regarding helping out Debbie’s adult-
aged daughter (from former marriage), who
supported Debbie to leave Jake earlier.
 PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.)
• Jake had had difficult relationship with his
step-daughter, entering into family when she
was 6.
• Jake had been very controlling of her.
• Jake decided to write step-daughter who now
lived in France a letter of apology for his
behavior (which daughter knew about).
• Daughter responded briefly but lukewarm
positive – better than expected.
 PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.)
• Debbie went to visit daughter.
• Prepared for trip by practicing how to set
boundaries with daughter regarding her
renewed relationship with Jake.
• Debbie’s trip went so well that daughter and
her husband decided to move back to Seattle
later in year to avail themselves of better work
opportunities.
 PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.)
• Debbie and Jake continued to work on Open-
Ended Questions and Shared Meaning system
regarding work, future retirement dreams,
and daughter and son-in-law’s imminent
return to Seattle.
• Jake was nervous about their return –
strategized how to rebuild relationship with
daughter – giving daughter the control over
duration and frequency of meetings with him.
 PHASE 3: ATTACHMENT (CONT.)
• Daughter and son-in-law successfully
transitioned back to Seattle.
• Family session held where daughter aired
anger and hurt at Jake’s past behavior.
• Jake did good job at acknowledging, taking
responsibility, apologizing, and not getting
defensive.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING