TL;DR
Get gifts for the two of you delivered free with Prime
- Fast, free delivery on millions of items
- Prime Video, Amazon Music and more included
- Member-only deals all year
The Gottman Institute’s article argues that breaches of trust in a relationship can extend beyond sexual affairs, including concealed emotional closeness, absence during moments of need, and broken agreements. Its examples offer a framework for discussing relationship boundaries, but they do not establish that every listed behavior is betrayal for every couple.
The Gottman Institute has published an article arguing that fidelity can involve more than avoiding a sexual affair, pointing to concealed emotional connections, unmet needs for support and promises quietly abandoned. The report frames these behaviors as possible breaches of a couple’s shared trust, while recognizing that partners may draw their boundaries differently.
The article, titled “Have We Been Thinking About Fidelity Too Narrowly?”, uses two relationship stories to illustrate its argument. In one, Margo meets her husband Ken’s colleague Vicky and discovers that Vicky knows intimate details about the family, including the dog’s habits and the children’s favorite treats. Ken says they are “just friends” and explains that he kept the friendship quiet because he expected Margo to feel jealous. The report’s focus is not simply on whether the friendship was romantic: it is on the secrecy and the gap between what Vicky knew and what Margo had been told.
A second example follows Tina, whose husband Gene misses the hospital visit where her father is dying. He had said he was attending a critical meeting, but later tells her he stayed away because he feared saying the wrong thing and did not know how to help. Tina had not explained the extent of her hurt, and Gene had interpreted her distress as grief. The couple was considering separation when they finally discussed the incident and agreed to try couples’ therapy, according to the report.
The article presents 10 possible forms of betrayal: conditional commitment, a concealed nonsexual affair, lying, forming a coalition against a partner, emotional absence, withdrawal of sexual interest without caring discussion, disrespect, unfairness, selfishness and breaking promises. It says these examples are not reasons to assume the worst about a partner; they are ways to identify problems that couples may be able to address. The report attributes its framework to John Gottman and Nan Silver’s book What Makes Love Last?.
Trust Beyond Sexual Exclusivity
The article shifts attention from a narrow question—whether a partner had sex outside the relationship—to whether the couple’s expectations of honesty, care and commitment are being upheld. That distinction can matter when one person feels betrayed by secrecy or emotional withdrawal even though no sexual affair occurred. It gives couples language for discussing what happened and why it damaged trust.
At the same time, the examples do not make every friendship, missed occasion or difference in desire a betrayal. The report distinguishes, for instance, between having different levels of sexual interest and leaving a partner without an honest conversation about that change. Its framework depends on the relationship’s agreements and how the people involved experience the behavior. Readers should treat the list as a prompt for discussion, not a universal checklist or a diagnosis of a relationship.
The practical implication is that repair may require naming the specific rupture rather than arguing only over labels such as “cheating.” In Tina and Gene’s story, learning why Gene stayed away changed Tina’s understanding of his motive, but it did not erase her hurt. The account presents conversation and couples’ therapy as steps they chose; it does not claim that either guarantees reconciliation.
Popular right now
De'Longhi Magnifica Evo Automatic Espresso Machine with Milk Frother – Silver
Ninja Flip Toaster Oven & Air Fryer, 8-in-1, Stainless Steel, SP151
Dyson V8 Cyclone Cordless Vacuum
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
How the Report Defines Betrayal
The Gottman Institute article draws on a view of a committed relationship as an agreement grounded in mutual trust, respect, nurturance and protection. Under that approach, betrayal can mean violating an agreement or failing to respond to a partner’s needs, not only having an affair. The report identifies two broader patterns: hiding one’s needs to avoid conflict, and seeking an emotional connection that someone feels is missing from the relationship.
The opening story puts that framework into practice. Ken’s friendship with Vicky is not described as sexual, and Ken says he considered her a friend. But Margo’s discovery raises a separate issue: she had not been told about a relationship that involved sharing details of their family life. The article treats concealment and exclusion as the source of the injury, rather than claiming that close friendships outside a couple are inherently unfaithful.
The later examples broaden the idea further, from broken promises to an unequal division of household work. They are illustrations from the source, not independently verified reports of real couples or evidence that the behaviors have the same effect in every relationship. The article’s central claim is interpretive: patterns that erode trust can be discussed as forms of betrayal even when they do not fit the conventional definition of an affair.
““Just friends.””
— Ken, as quoted in the Gottman Institute article
Where Couples Draw Their Boundaries
The article does not set a single boundary that applies to every couple. It says partners differ in what they consider acceptable and does not provide survey data or research findings quantifying how often the listed behaviors occur or how they affect relationships. Its examples support a framework for discussion, rather than proving that all couples will experience them in the same way.
Some details also remain open within the stories. The report does not establish whether Ken’s friendship with Vicky involved romantic feelings, and it does not describe how Tina and Gene’s relationship developed after they agreed to therapy. The source’s final section begins another example about Joyce and Kyle but is incomplete in the supplied material, so no conclusion about that couple can be reported. Long-term outcomes and broader evidence are not provided.
Talk About Agreements and Repair
The report recommends, through its examples, bringing hidden hurt and unmet expectations into conversation rather than relying on assumptions about a partner’s intentions. Couples can discuss what they understand their agreements to be, whether a particular behavior crossed a boundary and what would be needed to rebuild trust. In situations involving ongoing conflict or a breakdown in communication, the Tina and Gene story shows one couple agreeing to seek couples’ therapy; the article does not present that as a guaranteed solution.
No follow-up study, formal policy or new clinical guidance is announced in the source. The immediate next step for readers is therefore a personal one: identify the specific behavior and its effect, then discuss it in relation to the expectations both partners have actually agreed to. Whether a relationship can repair a breach, and what repair would involve, remains specific to the people concerned.
Key Questions
What does the Gottman Institute article mean by fidelity?
It treats fidelity as more than sexual exclusivity, linking it to trust, honesty, support and keeping shared agreements. The article argues that secrecy or emotional absence can also damage a committed relationship.
Does the article say that every close friendship is cheating?
No. Ken describes Vicky as a friend, and the report does not claim that close friendships outside a relationship are inherently unfaithful. Its concern in that example is that Ken kept the closeness from Margo.
What are examples of betrayal besides a sexual affair?
The article lists behaviors such as lying, emotional absence, disrespect, unfairness and breaking promises, alongside a concealed nonsexual connection. It presents these as possible breaches of trust, not automatic proof of betrayal in every couple.
What happened between Tina and Gene?
Gene missed the hospital visit when Tina’s father was dying. He later said he had stayed away because he feared not knowing how to help. Tina had concealed how abandoned she felt; after discussing the incident, they agreed to try couples’ therapy, according to the article.
Does the report show that couples can repair these breaches?
It offers examples of couples discussing hurt and, in Tina and Gene’s case, choosing therapy. It does not provide follow-up outcomes or establish that conversation or therapy guarantees reconciliation.
Source: gottman.com
