This art icle was downloaded by: [ Universit y of Nevada Las Vegas] On: 12 March 2014, At : 11: 30 Publisher: Rout ledge I nform a Lt d Regist ered in England and Wales Regist ered Num ber: 1072954 Regist ered office: Mort im er House, 37- 41 Mort im er St reet , London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy: Innovations in Clinical and Educational Interventions Publicat ion det ails, including inst ruct ions f or aut hors and subscript ion inf ormat ion: ht t p: / / www. t andf online. com/ loi/ wcrt 20 A Theoretical Framework for Defining, Understanding, and Treating Internet Infidelity a Kat herine M. Hert lein MS & Fred P. Piercy PhD b a t he Marriage and Family Therapy program , Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA b Head of t he Depart ment of Human Development , Virginia Tech , Blacksburg, VA, 24061, USA Published online: 03 Oct 2008. To cite this article: Kat herine M. Hert lein MS & Fred P. Piercy PhD (2005) A Theoret ical Framework f or Def ining, Underst anding, and Treat ing Int ernet Inf idelit y, Journal of Couple & Relat ionship Therapy: Innovat ions in Clinical and Educat ional Int ervent ions, 4: 1, 79-91, DOI: 10. 1300/ J398v04n01_04 To link to this article: ht t p: / / dx. doi. org/ 10. 1300/ J398v04n01_04 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTI CLE Taylor & Francis m akes every effort t o ensure t he accuracy of all t he inform at ion ( t he “ Cont ent ” ) cont ained in t he publicat ions on our plat form . However, Taylor & Francis, our agent s, and our licensors m ake no represent at ions or warrant ies what soever as t o t he accuracy, com plet eness, or suit abilit y for any purpose of t he Cont ent . Any opinions and views expressed in t his publicat ion are t he opinions and views of t he aut hors, and are not t he views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of t he Cont ent should not be relied upon and should be independent ly verified wit h prim ary sources of inform at ion. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, act ions, claim s, proceedings, dem ands, cost s, expenses, dam ages, and ot her liabilit ies what soever or howsoever caused arising direct ly or indirect ly in connect ion wit h, in relat ion t o or arising out of t he use of t he Cont ent . This art icle m ay be used for research, t eaching, and privat e st udy purposes. Any subst ant ial or syst em at ic reproduct ion, redist ribut ion, reselling, loan, sub- licensing, syst em at ic supply, or dist ribut ion in any form t o anyone is expressly forbidden. Term s & Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 Condit ions of access and use can be found at ht t p: / / www.t andfonline.com / page/ t erm sand- condit ions Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 A Theoretical Framework for Defining, Understanding, and Treating Internet Infidelity Katherine M. Hertlein Fred P. Piercy ABSTRACT. We offer a theoretical framework for treating Internet infidelity that employs concepts from postmodernism and transgenerational therapy. With this framework, clinicians will better understand some of the definitional issues and system dynamics involved, which should support more informed, coherent treatment of Internet affairs. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800HAWORTH. E-mail address: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.] KEYWORDS. Infidelity, Internet, extramarital, differentiation, postmodern The Internet provides new challenges to family therapists around how to assess and treat Internet infidelity. A new generation of clinicians and researchers are applying family therapy models and techniques to Internet infidelity, and are examining the factors that seem to relate to Internet affairs. However, challenges exist in this area. The defKatherine M. Hertlein, MS, is a Doctoral Candidate in the Marriage and Family Therapy program, and Fred P. Piercy, PhD, is Professor of Family Therapy and Head of the Department of Human Development, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA 24061 (E-mail: khertlein@yahoo.com) or (E-mail: piercy@vt.edu). Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, Vol. 4(1) 2005 http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JCRT © 2005 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J398v04n01_04 79 Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 80 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY inition of Internet infidelity is not the same for every couple, so it is difficult to determine at what point treatment is indicated and what the treatment goals should be. Treatment models should include some sensitivity to how Internet relationships differ from conventional (nonInternet related) relationships. Finally, existing Internet infidelity treatment models should be more than a collection of interventions. Treatment models should have theoretical coherence. In this article, we present a theoretically-driven framework for addressing Internet infidelity and an illustrative case example of the use of the framework with a couple experiencing Internet infidelity. INTERNET INFIDELITY TREATMENT MODELS Delmonico, Griffin, and Carnes (2002) contend that a variety of models can be used to treat Internet infidelity. They state: Mental health professionals serve their clients best when they acknowledge that there are a variety of approaches in the treatment of cybersex behavior. In fact, treatment is most effective when clinicians consider utilizing a multifaceted approach that includes various modalities (e.g., individual, group, family, support groups, medication, etc.) and various theoretical orientations (e.g., cognitive-behavioral, reality-therapy, psychodynamic, etc.). (p. 151) Delmonico, Griffin, and Carnes (2002) present treatment for cybersex cases (i.e., masturbation through Internet pornography or chatroom conversations) as proceeding through two phases: a phase of first-order change followed by second-order change interventions. First-order change strategies refer to those employed as crisis intervention (Delmonico, Griffin, & Carnes, 2002). One strategy is to reduce Internet access. This involves the physical moving of the computer or Internet access to a different location less accessible to the client. Problematic sites or web pages may also be restricted. The clinician attempts to raise awareness of cybersex as a problem in the computer user’s life (Delmonico, Griffin, & Carnes, 2002). The clinician attempts to bring about second-order change by interrupting the ritual (called “attacking the appeal”) and by addressing collateral issues such as grief and the development of more positive ways to address social isolation. Though the multifaceted approach that Delmonico, Griffin, and Carnes (2002) describe relates to cybersex treat- Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy 81 ment, the same interventions may be used to treat Internet infidelity cases. Another model proposed by Shaw (1997) is based on reducing the client’s vulnerability to Internet infidelity. Vulnerability factors that could be addressed include a lack of connection with one’s partner or a lack of ability to discuss problems with one’s partners. Other vulnerability factors include a readiness of an individual to be in an emotional relationship and the fear of being oneself. In an Internet relationship, people often lie about who they are (Shaw, 1997). Shaw (1997) proposes therapists examine secrets between the partners in a relationship, emphasize maturity, and build integrity between partners. Young, Griffin-Shelly, Cooper, O’Mara, and Buchanan (2000) examine the factors that lead to cybersex addiction (anonymity, convenience, and escape) and thus help the clinician understand Internet infidelity and develop a rationale for his/her interventions. Their suggested treatment model includes improving communication between the spouses, rebuilding trust, and addressing underlying issues within the marriage. Maheu and Subotnik (2001) also provide strategies for dealing with the Internet affair based on Cooper’s Triple A model of Internet infidelity factors–anonymity, accessibility, and affordability (Cooper, 2002). Maheu and Subotnik (2001) interventions include standard couple interventions combined with elements of transgenerational theory. Therapists help couples cope with emotions, search for understanding, and move toward reconstructing the relationship. Therapists then help the couple examine family-of-origin issues. In the recovery process it is important to express empathy and accept responsibility to rebuild trust between partners. The next steps include reducing co-dependency and reestablishing a courtship, and finally finding closure and apologizing. In the last steps, the therapist helps the couple find meaning, tolerate setbacks, and recognize loss in regard to experiencing setbacks (Maheu & Subotnik, 2001). Atwood and Schwartz (2002) explain Internet infidelity in terms of such issues as differentiation of self, intimacy, mid-life crisis, and addiction. The treatment considerations they present are logical and flexible. They emphasize relational processes and communication. The steps Atwood and Schwartz (2002) present for the treatment of Internet infidelity begin with assessing the Internet user’s accessibility to the Internet as well as how he or she uses it. Atwood and Schwartz (2002) explore the couple’s social networks and implement crisis intervention (such as limiting computer access). Once the environment is safe, the 82 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 therapist assists the couple to identify underlying issues. The therapist then supports better communication and focuses on rebuilding marital trust. Finally, the therapist helps the couple construct new stories or a ritual to symbolize a new start (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002). STRENGTHS AND GAPS IN EXISTING TREATMENT APPROACHES There are several strengths in the existing treatment information for Internet infidelity. For example, in most existing models, therapists help the couples discuss the actions and emotions that lead up to the infidelity, and help them build better conversation in general. They also help couples look for ways to build trust again in their relationship. Unfortunately, current thinking in the treatment of Internet infidelity is little different from the treatment of any presenting problem. For example, the strategies presented by Atwood and Schwartz (2002) include evaluation, crisis intervention, dealing with underlying issues, building communication skills, rebuilding trust, and developing rituals. While these interventions are appropriate, they do not address some of the unique features of Internet relationships. However, to treat Internet infidelity we must be able to define it. It is important to integrate elements of existing therapy models that are sensitive to the unique factors of Internet infidelity and to build a treatment framework that addresses these unique factors. Also, it is not enough to simply gather a collection of interventions without coherent theory that informs clinical judgment. Nelson (2000) provides three scenarios that describe the most common Internet infidelity situations. One vignette describes a sexual relationship initiated via the Internet. Another describes a relationship characterized by flirtatious emails. A final scenario describes one spouse viewing pornography online. Nelson (2000) found that clinicians cannot agree on the definition of Internet infidelity. Some experts state that a primary criteria is sex; others believe that emotional intimacy defines the infidelity, and still others see secrecy as a critical component. A breach of trust is also part of many people’s definition of Internet infidelity. Each couple must be helpful to define what is “over the line” and why. Did a breach of their marital contract occur? If so, what was the expectation and what was the breach? (see, for example, Lusterman, 1998; Thompson, 1984). And how did the breach affect the Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy 83 relationship? If couples can determine and agree on the problem, they can more easily agree on behavior to address the problem. In existing Internet infidelity treatment models, elements of theories are evident, but the models themselves are not grounded in theory. One theoretical construct that seems particularly suited to understanding Internet infidelity is differentiation (Maheu & Subotnik, 2001). Infidelity can be thought of as a behavior used by individuals with low levels of differentiation (Maheu & Subotnik, 2001). Partners with higher levels of differentiation would be more likely to manage their anxiety in more acceptable and flexible ways. The Maheu and Subotnik (2001) treatment model includes exploring family-of-origin issues related to Internet infidelity through the use of a genogram. We see a place for transgenerational interventions in the treatment of Internet infidelity. We propose these and other interventions from an overarching postmodern and transgenerational conceptualization. Within this loose framework, we propose two stages, assessment and intervention, that involve sequential applications of distinct theoretical frameworks and interventions not unlike the integrative approach proposed by Pinsof (1995). The assessment phase is grounded in postmodern ideology, specifically influenced by the social constructionist model. The treatment phase is grounded in both transgenerational and postmodern thinking. PRIMARY FRAMEWORKS USED TO STUDY THE TREATMENT OF INFIDELITY Postmodernism Postmodernism is a reaction to modernism, a philosophical position asserting that individuals are inherently rational and that reality and truth can be determined through objective, empirical means. Modernists assert, then, that it is possible to determine accurate descriptions of the world (McNamee, 1992). Postmodernists move from understanding reality to understanding the human creation of multiple realities. In postmodernism, there is no one objective reality. Postmodernists also believe that one cannot fully know another’s individual experience (Doherty, 1999). Postmodern thinking focuses on narratives and texts as interpretations of lived experience (Lax, 1992). To a postmodern theorist, perceived reality is reality, and perceptions are human creations molded by context, history personality, and interactions, to name just a Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 84 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY few factors. Postmodernists share beliefs and knowledge about how the world works as opposed to attempting to understand only one objective position. From a postmodern perspective, we can see infidelity from multiple perspectives and thus define it in a variety of ways. From a postmodern perspective, infidelity may be considered in terms of coitus, secrecy, and emotional intimacy. The recent emphasis on narrative in psychotherapy is also an example of a problem presented as an authored story. One’s story of Internet infidelity will logically include the layered subtitles and subplots that come from the unique relationship of the Internet to the couple and third party. Differentiation Bowen’s (1978) concept of differentiation includes efforts to separate one’s self from the “undifferentiated ego mass” (emotional overconnectedness) of a relationship. Harriet Lerner (1985; 1989) has translated Bowen’s ideas to a lay audience that finds much of his theory connecting with their own personal experiences. Transgenerational theories are also useful to clinicians who want to understand infidelity. Maheu and Subotnik (2001), for example, see one’s Internet affair in terms of efforts to differentiate. As a result, Maheu and Subotnik (2001) use genograms to explore how messages from past generations influence the present relationship and the decisions that lead to the affair. Differentiation is an attempt to balance interdependence and connectedness within relationships. It is within this balancing that people experience anxiety, and decisions to gain distance or connectedness with others can be seen as a result of this anxiety. Increasing differentiation helps individuals to refrain from engaging in emotionally reactive patterns (Bowen, 1978). In an affair, one might hypothesize that a third party is recruited to reduce the anxiety between partners. The person having the affair gets distance from his/her problems, yet achieves the goal of emotional closeness with the third partner. The system has achieved differentiation, and as a whole it has achieved both distance and intimacy. Unfortunately the resolution is often short-lived and brings with it its own problems. The solution also takes on different dimensions depending on the players. For example, women with higher levels of fusion may be, according to the theory, more likely to engage in physical infidelity. Similarly, women who are more emotionally reactive may be more likely to engage in emotional infidelity (MilewskiHertlein, Ray, Wetchler, & Killmer, 2003). Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy 85 Moultrup (1990) explicitly ties differentiation to the phenomenon of infidelity, providing a primary application of Bowen (1978) family systems theory to infidelity. Moultrup (1990) asserts that differentiation is at the heart of explaining extramarital relationships. Moultrup (1990) and Maheu and Subotnik (2001) posit that persons who are better differentiated (or better able to maintain balance between connection and independence) are more proficient in dealing with anxiety. Additionally, these individuals would be less likely to pull in a third party as a way to manage their anxiety. Those who are able to maintain balanced dependence and independence needs are less likely to engage in infidelity. Triangulation Triangulation is another process Bowen (1978) specifically addresses to family systems. Triangulation occurs when a third person or thing becomes drawn into a relationship between two people, typically as a way to reduce anxiety. For example, a husband losing himself briefly in television (i.e., triangling in TV) may be seen as a way to divert his attention from his tense relationship with his wife. Triangles are likely to form, then, when there is tension in a system. Friedman (1991) discusses affairs as a manifestation of triangulation. Moultrup (1990) also discusses triangles and triangulation from a multigenerational standpoint and explicitly relates them to affairs. Moultrup (1990) states, “affairs are one variation on the natural process of triangling in a system” (p. 31). A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK FOR TREATING INTERNET INFIDELITY Assessment Internet infidelity, for the purposes of this article, is defined as any breach of the marital contract where the Internet is or was a medium bringing a couple to therapy. In this sense, the presenting problem is understood by learning about the couples’ relationship rules and how Internet involvement breached their marital contract (Sager, 1976). Guided by postmodern thinking, the therapist must first learn about each partner’s relationship expectations and determine what Internet infidelity means for each. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 86 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY The next step in assessment is to determine the problematic behavior for each partner related to the Internet. The problematic behavior identified by the couple can be the time one spends online with another individual, sexual encounters with that other individual, or downloading pornography, just to name a few. It is up to the couple to determine what specific issues and concerns bring them to therapy. Of course, what may be a problem to one partner may not be a problem for the other. But if one partner has a problem with behavior (e.g., viewing pornography), in systems terms, that problem affects the entire relationship. Cooper’s Triple A factors of affordability, accessibility, and anonymity are important issues to assess (Cooper, 2002). Most important, though, are each partner’s expectations around faithfulness, secrecy, and trust and how Internet involvement has played a role in breaking these expectations. The assessment phase is informed by postmodernism, since the therapist is attempting to explore multiple realities and co-constructed definitions of faithfulness and trust. This phase is also informed by Sager’s (1976) work on marital contracts since the therapist assumes that the problem involves some breach of marital expectations (i.e., the marital contract). Treatment The treatment phase is grounded in transgenerational theory.1 The therapist will examine the behaviors around Internet infidelity with an eye for anxiety, differentiation, and triangulation. Then he or she will plan interventions that support detriangulation (e.g., getting the couple and/or third person out of the emotional system) and individuation (e.g., supporting both closeness and distance through direct, clear communication. That is, “I” statements around wants, needs, and the conditions that support healthy intimacy). The genogram is also an important element in treating Internet infidelity. The genogram can provide three functions in regard to Internet infidelity pattern tracking. The therapist should use the genogram to assess for any transgenerational patterns regarding infidelity (conventional or Internet). Buunk and Bakker (1995) and Atwater (1979) found that, for women, norms about infidelity play a role in the likelihood of engaging in infidelity. Using a genogram and discussing meanings of infidelity across generations can shed light on family norms, social norms, and how each partner views infidelity. The therapist can also use the genogram to assess patterns of addiction in the family and if applica- Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy 87 ble, to connect addiction to the Internet user’s computer usage (cf. Cooper & Sportolari, 1997). Of course, an addiction should be addressed directly in treatment. Finally, the therapist can use the genogram to trace emotional patterns throughout the generations. How have members in each spouse’s family-of-origin handled anxiety? What patterns have been handed down over generations? What messages have been given about sexuality? Questions can be tailored to Internet use. Bowen (1978) states triangles naturally occur in systems. In triangulation, however, individuals depend on persons outside the relationship to reduce anxiety. A detriangling focus in therapy will support more dyadic (not triadic) coping. First, the therapist determines the role of the computer in triangulation. Was the computer used to find another person to reduce anxiety (Maheu & Subotnik, 2001)? Triangling, though, does not always involve a third person. One pattern to deal with anxiety in a family, for example, might be to throw oneself into work (i.e., work becomes part of the triangle). In a society where working probably involves a computer and the computer is the mechanism for the spouse to engage in infidelity, losing one’s self in the work may involve several triangles (e.g., work itself or a third person). It is particularly important for the therapist to help the couple explore other ways (beside triangling) to deal with anxiety. This includes facilitating direct conversations to deal with issues (misunderstanding intimacy needs, feelings of betrayal) without resorting to extradyadic contact. Bowen (1978) distinguishes between functional and basic differentiation. Basic differentiation refers to one’s general level of differentiation, usually the same as one’s family-of-origin. Though this type of differentiation does not change much over time (according to Bowen), functional differentiation refers to a level at a particular time. As events occur in one’s life, the functional level of differentiation changes. Infidelity may be such an event. Therefore, the therapist and couple should determine whether the manner in which the anxiety is manifested is from a functional perspective or a basic perspective. Does the individual, in response to anxiety, typically triangulate other people or objects, or is infidelity a rare circumstance? Once the patterns and family history are explored, the therapist works to help partners become more differentiated. Greater differentiation includes an awareness of each partner’s reactive pattern and involves helping the client move towards less reactivity and better decision-making. This can include tracking patterns, identifying decision-making points and identifying the types of decisions. In the case of infidelity, in- 88 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 dividuals should recognize the feelings and behaviors that led to the infidelity, what needs they represent, and how those needs can be met within the relationship. BRIEF VIGNETTE John and Lucy originally came to therapy to work on issues of power and control in their couple relationship. Married for eight years, the couple had a three-year-old daughter. Lucy also had a twelve-year-old son, Jerome, from her prior marriage. Over the course of the sessions, Lucy stated that she had discovered messages on the computer from John to another woman. The messages were flirtatious in nature and Lucy was concerned about John’s relationship with this woman. John admitted that he had flirted with the woman. Lucy confronted John about his plans to meet the woman. John initially denied that he had met her, but later admitted that he had met her on one occasion. Lucy was especially concerned because John had previously had a brief affair with another women during the early years of their marriage, leading to a brief marital separation. Assessment During the early part of the therapy, the therapist worked with John and Lucy to identify their concerns, since Internet infidelity definitions differ from couple to couple. Lucy stated she was not initially suspicious of John’s behavior until she came across the messages. The therapist helped the couple determine that “time on the computer” was one factor influencing John’s behavior. Lucy said she did not trust John when he said he was working late. Though John indicated that he and the other woman did not have sex and that nothing romantic happened during their meeting, Lucy was concerned about the flirtatious nature of their messages and the fact that John had met her on one occasion. For her, he had broken her trust (sexual or otherwise)–her expectation that both he and Lucy would not engage in intimacy with a third person. Though John maintained there was no sexual relationship between him and the woman, Lucy still considered their relationship as infidelity because John’s communication with her was of a flirtatious and secretive nature. Also, John’s arranged meeting with her was a breach of their marital contract, or at least her understanding of it. John, in therapy, began to understand how Lucy perceived his behavior (even though he Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy 89 saw no problem), and agreed to stop talking with the other woman to improve his relationship with Lucy. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 Treatment Pattern Definition. Lucy and John were able to identify several habits that led to John’s Internet involvement with the other woman. John indicated, for example, that he used the computer when Lucy was busy preparing dinner. John also stated that he often used the computer after a day of work to relax. Identifying patterns such as these set the stage for the therapist to develop a contract for computer use that would inform her interventions (e.g., John was encouraged to help Lucy with dinner. They used the time they saved to have a glass of wine and chat before dinner). Exploring Genograms. The therapist assigned Lucy and John to complete their genograms. They explored the patterns and roles in their families that contributed to how they reacted to anxiety in their current relationship. John shared that his father was addicted to cocaine when John was in grade school. As a result, John’s father was unpredictable. Lucy understood the difficulty of living with someone whose behavior was unpredictable since her father was an alcoholic. Lucy and John recognized that they handle anxiety in their relationships in unique ways. Lucy organized as a way to survive and John looked for an escape as he did when he was living with unpredictable, cocaine-addicted behavior. John stated that he found it easier to connect with someone on the Internet because, prior to meeting them, in person, he could determine their stability through their Internet conversations. He said that he needed that stability, particularly when he and Lucy were angry at each other. The computer provided him an easy way to communicate with others while Lucy was busy. Reducing Triangulation and Coping with Anxiety. The therapist helped Lucy and John to identify the ways in which both of them have triangulated others to reduce the anxiety between them. John admitted that at first he used the computer to avoid stress, and it became a way to talk to others while his wife was busy. The therapist implemented some first-order change strategies such as moving the computer to a more public place in the house. Additionally, the therapist prescribed “sofa sessions” for the couple three times per week, in which John and Lucy were to take 15 minutes to talk to one another. This intervention provided a different way for John and Lucy to handle their anxiety. It also substituted positive couple relationship behavior for problematic behaviors (e.g., Internet chats with another woman) that weakened the marriage. Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 90 JOURNAL OF COUPLE & RELATIONSHIP THERAPY The therapist asked Lucy how she typically handles anxiety. Lucy stated that when she becomes anxious she tries to get in control of things. One example of this is focusing on the children. The therapist asked whether Lucy sometimes micromanages John. Lucy agreed that she does. For example, she often critiques John’s parenting and questions him whenever he works late or uses the computer. Of course, some of her concerns were warranted, but she admitted that she often becomes hypervigilant. The therapist challenged Lucy to talk to John rather than micromanage him when she gets anxious. The therapist explained that even though her overcontrol helped her survive in the past with her father, she could help her relationship with John by looking for more positive, intimate, non-critical ways to connect with him. Consolidation Moving Toward Greater Levels of Differentiation. By exploring emotional patterns through genograms and conversation, and through detriangling, John and Lucy were able to move toward greater levels of differentiation and anxiety management. John and Lucy scheduled the sofa sessions just after work. Lucy worked on managing her anxiety and they began reconnecting through positive time together and talking, not by overmanaging. John apologized to Lucy (an important event) and agreed to put the computer in a different place in the house. Lucy and John also took time in therapy to address how John’s previous infidelity has undermined the couple’s relationship and trust within the relationship, and what change in their relationship would make their marriage “affair-proof” in the future. CONCLUSION We present here a practical and theoretical framework for Internet infidelity treatment. We hope that it will provide useful guideposts to help clinicians better understand certain dynamics that are prevalent in Internet infidelity. We also hope that these guideposts will support more theoretically coherent treatment of Internet affairs and stimulate theoretical reflection related to this quite modern, yet in many ways, timeless presenting problem. Katherine M. Hertlein and Fred P. Piercy 91 NOTE Downloaded by [University of Nevada Las Vegas] at 11:30 12 March 2014 1. Our change in focus from postmodernism in the assessment phase to transgenerational in the treatment phase is not discontinuous, but one of emphasis. We acknowledge Pinsof’s (1995) integrative model for our emphasis-by-phase approach. REFERENCES Atwater, L. (1979). Getting involved: Women’s transition to first extramarital sex. Alternative Lifestyles, 2, 33-68. Atwood, J. D., & Schwartz, L. (2002). Cybersex: The new affair treatment considerations. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 1(3), 37-56. Bowen, M. (1978). Family therapy in clinical practice. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson. Buunk, B. P., & Bakker, A. B. (1995). Extradyadic sex: The role of descriptive and injunctive norms. Journal of Sex Research, 32(4), 313-318. Cooper, A. (2002). Sex and the Internet: A guidebook for clinicians. New York: Brunner-Routledge. Cooper, A., & Sportolari, L. (1997). Romance in cyberspace: Understanding on-line attraction. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), 7-14. Friedman, E. H. (1991). Bowen theory and therapy. In A. S. Gurman & D. P. Kniskern (Eds.), Handbook of Family Therapy (Vol. 2, pp. 134-170). Bristol, PA: Brunner/Mazel. Glass (2002). Couple therapy after the trauma of infidelity. In A. Gurman and N. Jacobsons (Eds.), Clinical Handbook of Couple Therapy (3nd Ed.), pp. 488-507. New York: Guilford Press. Lerner, H. G. (1985). The dance of anger. New York: Harper & Row. Lerner, H. G. (1989). The dance of intimacy. New York: Harper & Row. Lusterman, D. (1998). Infidelity: A survival guide. New York: MJF Books. Maheu, M. M., & Subotnik, R. B. (2001). Infidelity on the Internet. Naperville, IL: Sourcebooks, Inc. Milewski-Hertlein, K., Ray, R., Wetchler, J. L., & Killmer, J. M. (2003). The role of differentiation in extradyadic behavior. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy, 2(4), 38-50. Moultrup, D. J. (1990). Husbands, wives, and lovers: The emotional system of the extramarital affair. New York: The Guilford Press. Nelson, T. S. (2000). Internet Infidelity: A modified Delphi study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University. Pinsof, W. M. (1995). Integrative problem-centered therapy: A synthesis of family, individual, and biological therapies. New York: Basic Books. Sager, C. (1976). Marriage contracts and couple therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel. Shaw, J. (1997). Treatment rationale for Internet infidelity. Journal of Sex Education and Therapy, 22(1), 29-34. Thompson, A. P. (1984). Emotional and sexual components of extramarital relations. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 46, 35-42. Young, K. S., Griffin-Shelley, E., Cooper, A., O’Mara, J., & Buchanan, J. (2000). Online infidelity: A new direction in couple relationships with implications for evaluation and treatment. Sexual Addiction and Compulsivity, 7, 59-74.