Marital infidelity is considered a shocking issue for couples and families and common phenomenon for counselors and therapists [1]. Extramarital affairs create a great deal of confusion for couples. Based on the evidence, it was shown that most individuals expect monogamy and no extramarital affairs from their spouses [2-5]. The main victims of this phenomenon in the family environment are first women and then children and finally men [6]. Controlling is a problem that has received more attention in recent centuries. The main premise of controlling is that if individuals feel dissatisfied with a relationship, they will not feel responsible for it; however, they blame others and those out of control [7, 8].
Internal cohesion is considered one of the factors which are effective in the reduction of harms and controlling behaviors among couples faced with marital infidelity [9, 10]. Antonovsky defined the concept of internal cohesion while focusing on the model, which supports factors leading to human health and well-being instead of the ones resulting in diseases [11, 12]. Although this concept has three dimensions, they are practically defined on a single scale theoretically reflecting the general direction of life [13]. Feelings of strong inner cohesion are related to a high capacity for mental and physical coping with stress and challenges occurring throughout an individual's life [14]. Therefore, studies demonstrated that individuals with strong cohesion are more successful in coping with stress [15].
One of the therapies increasing internal cohesion among couples faced with marital infidelity and improving the reduction of controlling behaviors is the integrated model of emotionally-focused therapy (EFT) and Gottman’s model [16]. Accordingly, some efforts have been made to combine specific components of different approaches in a systematic manner and coherent and integrated model. Integrated approaches have unique benefits, including creating a broader basis for intervention and flexibility in the clients’ therapy [17]. Today, Gottman and Johnson are known as effective scholars in couple therapy [18] by developing a variety of training programs to strengthen couples' relationships. Gottman's theory is an integrated approach that is based on the doctrinal principles of various systemic, existential, psychoanalytical, and behavioral theories [19]. Similarly, Johnson emphasizes relationships, attachment styles, and interaction cycles in EFT [20].
The EFT refers to the important role of emotions and communication in organizing communicational patterns and regards emotions as change factors [21]. The EFT aimed to help couples achieve latent emotions and facilitate positive interactions. In addition, in a study on EFT for couples whose spouses have breast cancer, with a theoretical basis and descriptive case study, Adamson [22] observed that for a couple with a sick spouse, both spouses experience a great deal of emotional distress. Furthermore, Soltani et al. [23] demonstrated that EFT reduces couples' distress.
Gottman's [24] therapeutic approach includes organized programs and methods called regular and logical treatment processes, designed to deepen friendships, strengthen dispute management, and create common sense and purposefulness in couples' relationships [25]. Furthermore, Davis D, Shaver PR, and Vernon [26] investigated the effectiveness of Gottman's approach in relationship satisfaction, quality of friendship, and destructive marital conflicts within a year. In addition, Rajaee [27] showed the effect of Gottman's intervention on the reduction of emotional divorce. Razi [28] indicated that teaching Gottman's conflict resolution skills increases marital satisfaction.
Since couples faced with marital infidelities face many psychological, social, and emotional problems and harms, leading to tensions in various dimensions, it is difficult to regulate their emotions, beliefs, thoughts, and interpersonal relationships.
 
Objectives
This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of the combined model of EFT and Gottman's model in internal cohesion and reduction of controlling behaviors in couples faced with marital infidelity.
 
Materials and Methods
This quasi-experimental study was carried out on two experimental groups and one control group with a pretest-posttest design. The statistical population of the study included all the women referring to one of the counseling centers in Tehran, Iran, (i.e., Ganj-e-Daroun Flourishing Counseling Center, Third Way Center, and welfare-related centers) during 2018-2019 due to marital conflicts, problems related to satisfaction, and need for the improvement of marital relationships. The study population was chosen based on purposive sampling after the random screening.
 
Internal Cohesion Questionnaire
It is a 50-item questionnaire developed by Kimiai, Arqabai, and Jozi in 2013. This questionnaire has three subscales for the measurement of the levels of individual comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness of events. The significant scales include 23 items, 6 manageability scales, and 20 comprehensibility scales, scored based on a 5-point Likert scale from very low (1) to very high (5). The minimum and maximum scores are considered 5 and 115, respectively. The higher and lower scores indicate higher and lower internal cohesion, respectively. The Internal Cohesion Questionnaire has a good internal consistency, and the Cronbach's alpha coefficients are 0.935, 0.92, 0.65, and 0.886 for the whole scale, significant subscale, manageable subscale, and comprehensible subscale, respectively [29].
 
Controlling Behaviors Questionnaire
The marital controlling behaviors scale was developed in 2005 by Graham-Kavan and Archer for the evaluation of controlling behaviors. This is a 24-item tool examining the couples' controlling behaviors in marital life. Five more items were added to the scale for the couples who have children. The respondent should determine on a 5-point Likert scale (from 0 to 4) to what extent the spouse and his wife perform each one’s desired behaviors. The minimum and maximum scores are considered 0 and 96, respectively. The Cronbach's alpha coefficients are 0.95, 0.82, 0.71, 0.88, 0.69, 0.84, and 0.90 for the whole scale, children's phrase subscales, economic control subscale, threatening control subscale, controlling through intimidation subscale, emotional control subscale, and control through isolation subscale, respectively [30].
 

Session	Content
First	Establishing professional and empathetic communication; familiarizing with members and asking questions about their expectations from attending the training course; stating the goals and rules of the training sessions; completing research questionnaires as a pretest
Second	Familiarizing with the types of attachment styles; familiarizing with the cycle of negative interactions; identifying underlying and unexpressed emotions
Third	Summarizing the concepts of emotionally-focused therapy
Fourth	Familiarizing with a variety of daemon dialogue patterns
Fifth	Familiarizing with the concept of raw situations and the importance of identifying these situations; revisiting a rocky moment
Sixth	Familiarizing with divorce indicators and four riders of destiny; familiarizing with the style of starting arguments
Seventh	Familiarizing with the specifications of various types of marital infidelity and seven principles of a secure relationship house introduced by Gottman (1999)
Eighth and Ninth	Accepting influence and compromise (i.e., fourth principle); teaching ways to manage solvable problems (i.e., fifth principle), ways to overcome perpetual problems (i.e., sixth principle), and creating shared meaning (i.e., seventh principle)
Tenth	Facilitating the expression of needs and wishes as well as new solutions to old problems; healing injuries; consolidating new situations and positive interactive cycle; closing sessions; performing posttest and survey on participants

The inclusion criteria were interest and commitment to active and regular attendance at therapy sessions, no history of severe mental and emotional disorders, and no addiction, conflicts, and problems related to marital infidelity. The experimental groups participated in 10 sessions of 90 and 120 min, and the techniques and methods of communication imaging and integrated model of EFT and Gottman's model were presented step by step through weekly assignments and regular exercises by a consultant.
To observe ethical and professional principles, the researcher obtained the voluntary consent of all the study subjects for participation in the study. The integrated Gottman's model and EFT was developed by the researcher under the supervision of professors using theoretical and research backgrounds, concepts of exciting approach, and intervention program developed by Johnson based on the EFT model and Bowlby Attachment Theory [30], and some key categories of the Gottman’s model (Table 1).
The statistical methods, descriptive methods (e.g., mean and standard deviation), and Levene's test were used to analyze the data. Analysis of covariance was utilized to test the hypotheses by SPSS software (version 22).
 
Results
The descriptive findings included the statistical indicators (e.g., mean and standard deviation), number of sample subjects, and frequency table and percentage, which are presented for all the variables in the following tables (Tables 1-4).

Group	Variable	Index	Pretest	Posttest	Follow-up
Internal cohesion	Control	Mean	13.10	80.10	20.98
		SD	40.90	65.60	62.60
	Experimental	Mean	67.11	93.15	93.14
		SD	14.01	43.11	11.02
Understandability	Control	Mean	56.47	54.20	51.93
		SD	8.32	7.30	7.30
	Experimental	Mean	60.87	81.20	80.07
		SD	7.31	8.12	7.88
Manageability	Control	Mean	10.47	12.00	10.00
		SD	2.47	2.36	2.36
	Experimental	Mean	12.53	17.0	16.20
		SD	3.11	4.18	4.18
Significance	Control	Mean	39.20	38.60	36.27
		SD	6.06	4.42	3.51
	Experimental	Mean	41.27	54.33	53.67
		SD	8.43	7.90	7.86
Controlling behaviors	Control	Mean	53.60	52.93	58.80
		SD	7.40	7.44	7.19
	Experimental	Mean	56.73	16.53	24.13
		SD	8.66	5.68	5.94
Economic control	Control	Mean	8.87	9.00	10.13
		SD	2.50	2.48	2.47
	Experimental	Mean	8.67	3.20	4.27
		SD	1.35	1.70	1.75
Table 1. Continued
Threatening control	Control	Mean	9.00	8.73	9.47
		SD	2.24	2.34	1.92
	Experimental	Mean	9.87	2.40	3.67
		SD	2.39	1.40	1.68
Controlling through intimidation	Control	Mean	7.20	7.27	8.47
		SD	1.57	1.87	1.81
	Experimental	Mean	8.33	2.87	4.20
		SD	2.44	1.30	1.15
Emotional control	Control	Mean	9.35	9.27	10.27
		SD	2.45	2.52	2.52
	Experimental	Mean	10.33	3.07	4.47
		SD	2.69	1.10	0.83
Controlling through isolation	Control	Mean	9.13	8.80	9.87
		SD	2.17	2.01	1.96
	Experimental	Mean	9.33	2.40	3.67
		SD	2.53	1.40	1.40
Children-related control	Control	Mean	9.87	9.87	10.60
		SD	2.03	2.03	2.16
	Experimental	Mean	10.20	2.60	3.87
		SD	2.87	2.03	2.03

Statistical index/Effect	Test	Value	F	Df hypothesis	Df error	Sig	Eta coefficient
Difference among three groups and pretest effect control	Pillai's Trace	1.06	14.25	6.00	76.00	0.001	0.53
	Wilks' Lambda	0.04	52.74	6.00	74.00	0.001	0.81
	Hotelling's Trace	24.20	145.22	6.00	72.00	0.001	0.92
	Roy's Largest Root	24.10	305.20	3.00	38.00	0.001	0.96

Statistical index/Variable	Source of change	SS	Df	MS	F	P	Eta Square
Internal cohesion	Group	13893.73	2	6946.87	41.82	0.001	0.68
	Error	6478.19	39	16.11
Controlling behaviors	Group	11703.53	2	5851.77	56.21	0.001	0.79
	Error	1083.89	39	27.79

1. Adamson NA. Emotionally focused therapy with couples facing breast cancer: a theoretical foundation and descriptive case study. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology. 2013; 31(6):712-26. [DOI:10.1080/07347332.2013.835024] [PMID]
2. Yu Y, Wu D, Wang JM, Wang YC. Dark personality, marital quality, and marital instability of Chinese couples: an actor-partner interdependence mediation model. Personality and Individual Differences. 2020; 154:109689. [DOI:10.1016/
   j.paid.2019.109689]
3. Alavi M, Mei TK, Mehrinezhad SA. The dark triad of personality and infidelity intentions: the moderating role of relationship experience. Personality and Individual Differences. 2018; 128:49-54. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2018.02.023]
4. Armstrong D, Shakespeare-Finch J, Shochet I. Predicting post‐traumatic growth and post‐traumatic stress in firefighters. Australian Journal of Psychology. 2014; 66(1):
   38-46. [DOI:10.1111/ajpy.12032]
5. Chen L, Ngoubene-Atioky AJ. Does number of children moderate the link between intimate partner violence and marital instability among Chinese female migrant workers? Sex Roles. 2019; 80(11-12):745-57. [DOI:10.1007/s11199-019-1017-x]
6. Hwang W, Yoon J, Silverstein M, Brown MT. Husband–wife religious discordance, marital satisfaction, and risk of marital dissolution in two generations. Journal of Family Issues. 2019; 40(9):1201-23. [DOI:10.1177/0192513X19835871]
7. Lim SA, Lee J. Gender differences in the relationships between parental marital conflict, differentiation from the family of origin, and children’s marital stability. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 2020; 48(5):1-6. [DOI:10.1080/01926187.2020.1747370]
8. Babcock JC, Gottman JM, Ryan KD, Gottman JS. A component analysis of a brief psycho-educational couples' workshop: one‐year follow‐up results. Journal of Family Therapy. 2013; 35(3):252-80. [DOI:10.1111/1467-6427.12017]
9. Balderrama-Durbin C, Stanton K, Snyder DK, Cigrang JA, Talcott GW, Smith Slep AM, et al The risk for marital infidelity across a year-long deployment. Journal of Family Psychology. 2017; 31(5):629-34. [DOI:10.1037/fam0000281] [PMID]
10. Barni D, Danioni F. Adolescents' basic personal values and sense of coherence. Personality and Individual Differences. 2016; 102:46-50. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.053]
11. Batabyal AA. Marital infidelity: a game-theoretic analysis. Journal of Quantitative Economics. 2018; 16(1):227-33. [DOI:10.1007/s40953-017-0081-8]
12. Berger R, Weiss T. The posttraumatic growth model: an expansion to the family system. Traumatology. 2009; 15(1):63-74. [DOI:10.1177/1534765608323499]
13. Bloch L, Haase CM, Levenson RW. Emotion regulation predicts marital satisfaction: More than a wives’ tale. Emotion. 2014; 14(1):130-44. [DOI:10.1037/a0034272] [PMID] [PMCID]
14. Boeckxstaens P, Vaes B, De Sutter A, Aujoulat I, van Pottelbergh G, Matheï C, et al. A high sense of coherence as protection against adverse health outcomes in patients aged 80 years and older. The Annals of Family Medicine. 2016; 14(4):337-43. [DOI:10.1370/afm.1950] [PMID] [PMCID]
15. Bracha E, Hoffenbartal D. The existence of sense of coherence in teaching situations among student-teachers. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2015; 180:722-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.02.185]
16. Bravo IM, White Lumpkin P. The complex case of marital infidelity: an explanatory model of contributory processes to facilitate psychotherapy. The American Journal of Family Therapy. 2010; 38(5):421-32. [DOI:10.1080/01926187.
    2010.522491]
17. Brewer G, Abell L. Machiavellianism and sexual behavior: motivations, deception and infidelity. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 74:186-91. [DOI:10.1016/
    j.paid.2014.10.028]
18. Brewer G, Hunt D, James G, Abell L. Dark triad traits, infidelity and romantic revenge. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015; 83:122-7. [DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2015.04.007]
19. Burgess Moser M, Johnson SM, Dalgleish TL, Lafontaine MF, Wiebe SA, Tasca GA. Changes in relationship‐specific attachment in emotionally focused couple therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2016; 42(2):231-45. [DOI:10.1111/jmft.12139] [PMID]
20. Burgess Moser M, Johnson SM, Dalgleish TL, Wiebe SA, Tasca GA. The impact of blamer‐softening on romantic attachment in emotionally focused couples therapy. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2018; 44(4):640-54. [DOI:10.1111/jmft.12284] [PMID]
21. Conradi HJ, Dingemanse P, Noordhof A, Finkenauer C, Kamphuis JH. Effectiveness of the 'Hold me Tight' relationship enhancement program in a self‐referred and a clinician‐referred sample: an emotionally focused couples therapy‐based approach. Family Process. 2018; 57(3):613-28. [DOI:10.1111/famp.12305] [PMID]
22. Hajihasani M, Sim T. Marital satisfaction among girls with early marriage in Iran: Emotional intelligence and religious orientation. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth. 2019; 24(3):297-306. [DOI:10.1080/02673843.2018.
    1528167]
23. Crozier S, Robertson N, Dale M. The psychological impact of predictive genetic testing for Huntington′s disease: a systematic review of the literature. Journal of Genetic Counseling. 2015; 24(1):29-39. [DOI:10.1007/s10897-014-9755-y] [PMID]
24. Dabhilkar M, Bengtsson L. Invest or divest? On the relative improvement potential in outsourcing manufacturing. Production Planning and Control. 2008; 19(3):212-28. [DOI:10.1080/09537280701830144]
25. David P. Wedding the Gottman and Johnson approaches into an integrated model of couple therapy. The Family Journal. 2015; 23(4):336-45. [DOI:10.1177/1066480715601675]
26. Davis D, Shaver PR, Vernon ML. Physical, emotional, and behavioral reactions to breaking up: The roles of gender, age, emotional involvement, and attachment style. Personality
    and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2003; 29(7):871-84. [DOI:10.1177/0146167203029007006] [PMID]
27. DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. The general aggression model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence. 2011; 1(3):245. [DOI:10.1037/
    a0023842]
28. Elfassi Y, Braun-Lewensohn O, Krumer-Nevo M, Sagy S. Community sense of coherence among adolescents as related to their involvement in risk behaviors. Journal of Community Psychology. 2016; 44(1):22-37. [DOI:10.1002/
    jcop.21739]
29. Li X, Zhou N, Fang X, Cao H. Marital conflict resolution and marital affection in chinese marriage: integrating variable-centered and person-centered approaches. Marriage & Family Review. 2020; 56(4):369-89. [DOI:10.1080/014
    94929.2020.1712575]
30. Ferguson S, Browne J, Taylor J, Davis D. Sense of coherence and women׳s birthing outcomes: a longitudinal survey. Midwifery. 2016; 34:158-65. [DOI:10.1016/j.midw.2015.
    11.017]
31. Wiebe SA, Johnson SM. A review of the research in emotionally focused therapy for couples. Family Process. 2016; 55(3):390-407. [DOI:10.1111/famp.12229] [PMID]
32. Wiebe SA, Elliott C, Johnson SM, Burgess Moser M, Dalgleish TL, Lafontaine MF, et al. Attachment change in emotionally focused couple therapy and sexual satisfaction outcomes in a two-year follow-up study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy. 2019; 18(1):1-21. [DOI:10.1080/
    15332691.2018.1481799]  
33. Weissman N, Batten SV, Rheem KD, Wiebe SA, Pasillas RM, Potts W, et al. The effectiveness of emotionally focused couples therapy with veterans with PTSD: a pilot study. Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy. 2018; 17(1):25-41. [DOI:10.1080/15332691.2017.1285261]
34. Fincham FD, May RW. Infidelity in romantic relationships. Current Opinion in Psychology. 2017; 13:70-4. [DOI:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.03.008] [PMID]
35. Umubyeyi B, Mtapuri O. Approaches to marital conflict resolution: a perspective of democratic Republic of Congo migrants living in Durban, South Africa. Journal of Family Issues. 2019; 40(8):1065-85. [DOI:10.1177/0192513X19
    833092]
36. Garanzini S, Yee A, Gottman J, Gottman J, Cole C, Preciado M, et al. Results of Gottman method couples therapy with gay and lesbian couples. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. 2017; 43(4):674-84. [DOI:10.1111/jmft.12276] [PMID]
37. Geulayov G, Drory Y, Novikov I, Dankner R. Sense of coherence and 22-year all-cause mortality in adult men. Journal of Psychosomatic Research. 2015; 78(4):377-83. [DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.12.010] [PMID]