Gender Perspective on the Effects of Husbands’ Post-Infidelity Behaviors on Wives’ Forgiveness: A Longitudinal Study in Taiwan

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below are the point-by-point responses to your comments. All corresponding revisions have been marked in blue in the re-submitted manuscript for your reference.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: First, while the longitudinal scope of the study is impressive, the participant sample is extremely limited (n=5), which raises important concerns regarding the generalizability of the findings. Although this is a qualitative study and does not aim for statistical representativeness, the narrative could be more transparent in acknowledging this limitation and clarifying the interpretive nature of the results.

->Response 1:

Thank you for this valuable comment. I fully agree that the small sample size presents a limitation. I have revised the manuscript to explicitly clarify the interpretive nature of the findings and to acknowledge the study’s limited generalizability.

A new paragraph has been added in the Discussion and Conclusion section (page 16, line 683-687) to address these points. Specifically, it emphasizes the study’s phenomenological and interpretive foundation, the small sample’s implications, and the need for caution in generalizing the findings. This revision is marked in blue in the manuscript.

“First, while the hermeneutic phenomenological approach with a small sample allowed for deep exploration of wives’ experiences, the limited number of participants means the findings can’t be generalized. As with all interpretive qualitative research, the findings represent situated interpretations rooted in participants’ cultural and relational contexts, rather than objective truths to be generalized.”

Comments 2: Furthermore, the classification of participants into “higher-power” and “lower-power” wives is central to the structure of the findings, yet the operationalization of these categories remains vague. It is unclear whether power is defined in terms of education, income, decision-making authority, or some combination of these. Providing more precise criteria for these designations would strengthen the analytical coherence of the study.

->Response 2: Thank you for this helpful comment. I have revised the manuscript to clarify how I define and operationalize “higher-power” and “lower-power” wives. The classification now draws on three indicators of positional power: (1) whether she was the primary economic provider, (2) her level of education and occupational status relative to her husband’s, and

(3) her role in household decision-making.

This framework is supported by recent literature. The following references have been added to Section 4.1.2 (pages 10-11, line 447-462) and to the References section (nos. 4, 8, 35, and 36), all marked in blue in the revised manuscript:

“Marital power stems from multiple sources. The most visible form is positional power—objectively measurable resources such as income, education, and occupational status—which often shape decision-making authority within the family (Blanton & Vandergriff-Avery, 2001; Körner & Schütz, 2021). In East Asian societies, where extended family structures are common, marital power is also shaped by intergenerational re-sources and familial influence, rather than individual capacity alone (Cheng & Xie, 2023). Recent studies have also emphasized relational power—influence derived from emotional dynamics, communication skills, and referent power. Even when women lack structural resources, they may still exert meaningful influence through relationship-based strategies (Blanton & Vandergriff-Avery, 2001; Kyei et al., 2024).

In this study, the wife’s marital power was assessed based on three dimensions: (1) whether she was the primary economic provider, (2) her level of education and occupational status relative to her husband’s, and (3) her role in household decision-making. While positional power served as the main criterion, relational indicators—such as emotional agency and interpersonal influence—were also considered in interpreting their marital position. “

Comments 3: Another point relates to the nature of the infidelity itself. The empirical study does not distinguish between emotional and physical infidelity, which may have significantly different implications for how forgiveness is experienced and processed. Clarifying this or at least acknowledging the limitation would be helpful for the reader.

->Response 3: Thank you for this insightful comment. I have addressed this issue by acknowledging the absence of distinction between emotional and physical infidelity in the Discussion and Conclusion section (page 16-17, line 687-693). A new paragraph has been added to explain how this ambiguity reflects cultural practices in Taiwan, where wives often avoid probing into details and husbands rarely offer explicit disclosures. I also noted that participants’ accounts were based on subjective perceptions of betrayal, which limited further categorization. This revision is marked in blue in the manuscript.

“Second, the study didn’t distinguish between emotional and physical infidelity. In Taiwanese culture, many wives choose not to pursue details, and husbands often avoid admitting specifics. Without clear evidence, the nature of the affair remains vague. Our analysis was based on how participants themselves understood and felt about the betrayal. Future studies could explore how different types of infidelity influence forgiveness, and how culture shapes this ambiguity.”

Comments 4: An issue concerns the way the results are presented. Although the thematic organization is clear, the results often feels somewhat detached from the empirical material. The theoretical interpretations are well developed, but they are insufficiently anchored in participants’ actual narratives. The inclusion of more direct quotations and illustrative case examples would enhance the transparency of the interpretive process.

->Response 4: Thank you for this important observation. In response, I have revised the Results section by integrating additional direct quotations and case-based narratives throughout Sections 4.1.3 to 4.2.2 (pages 12-14). These changes enhance the connection between thematic interpretation and empirical evidence, allowing the reader to better understand how key categories were grounded in participants’ lived experiences. All additions are marked in blue in the manuscript.

“I told my husband that I could only consider divorcing him if my father passed away... I couldn’t let my father lose face or feel hurt.” [Chris2009])

“Even though I was very angry with him, he truly tried to make amends… I wondered, shouldn’t I be more forgiving? Shouldn’t I forgive someone who sincerely admits his mis-take and apologizes?” [Anne2009]

“I asked myself, why am I forgiving him? Is it because I truly want to, or is it due to outside pressure… because of the children? Or to save face? Am I being too self-sacrificing?” [Anne2014]

“For many years, I never really thought about his affair again. But during the days when I was preparing for divorce, I realized that the affair had already pushed me to build emo-tional boundaries. I had made myself emotionally independent, so he could no longer hurt me the way he did.” [Anne2024]

“Through the meditation course, I was able to release my emotions. I wanted to understand more clearly what I really needed for myself.” [Elle2014]

“I wanted my children to grow up in a safe and stable environment, no matter what their father did… So I went back to school, earned my degree, and became a teacher. Now both of my kids study at the school where I teach. I’ve taken students to science fairs and won awards five years in a row—even took a photo with the president. This is the version of myself that I wanted.” [Dora2024]

Comments 5: In addition, the manuscript occasionally implies causal relationships, for example, suggesting that power dynamics determine the type of forgiveness a wife will adopt. While the association between perceived power and forgiveness is certainly worth exploring, the current data cannot support such “causal” claims. The analysis would be strengthened by framing these patterns as interpretive tendencies rather than causal mechanisms, in line with the qualitative epistemology.

->Response 5: Thank you for this insightful comment. I have carefully reviewed the relevant section and revised the language in Section 4.1.2 (page 11, line 464-468) to avoid implying causal relationships. The revised text now frames the association between marital power and forgiveness as an interpretive pattern based on participants’ perspectives, rather than a deterministic link. Terms that previously implied causality were replaced with more descriptive and interpretive phrasing (e.g., “participants often described…”). These changes better reflect the epistemological foundation of qualitative research and are marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

“In marriages where the wife was perceived to hold more power, participants often described the husband as showing more constructive responses toward the wife and the affair following disclosure. Conversely, in accounts where the husband maintained greater control within the marriage, participants frequently described more avoidant or hostile responses from him after the affair.”

Comments 6: There are also some dimensions that are missing or underdeveloped. The absence of the male perspective is a notable limitation, particularly in a study that seeks to explore dyadic processes such as infidelity and forgiveness. Even if the focus is intentionally placed on the wives’ narratives, a brief discussion of this limitation and the implications of the one-sided view would be appropriate.

->Response 6: Thank you for this thoughtful suggestion. I fully agree that the absence of the husband’s perspective limits the understanding of the full relational process of forgiveness. I have added a statement in the Discussion and Conclusion section (page 17, line 693-695) to explicitly acknowledge this limitation and to discuss how a one-sided perspective may influence interpretation. This addition is marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

“Third, the study focused only on wives’ perspectives. Without the husbands’ voices, the understanding of how forgiveness unfolds between partners is limited. Future research could include both sides for a fuller view.”

Comments 7: Similarly, the study does not address the phenomenon of online or internet-based infidelity, which has become increasingly relevant in contemporary marital dynamics. While this may be outside the scope of the current sample, acknowledging this form of infidelity and proposing it as a direction for future research would enhance the manuscript’s relevance and currency.

->Response 7: Thank you for this relevant observation. I agree that the study did not explore online or cyber infidelity, which has become increasingly important in contemporary marital dynamics. This limitation has now been acknowledged in the Discussion and Conclusion section (page 17, line 695-698), where I also suggest that future research explore how digital relationships affect trust and forgiveness. This revision has been marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

“Lastly, this research began 15 years ago, when online or cyber infidelity was not yet common. Since none of the participants mentioned such experiences, this issue wasn’t explored. Future work could look at how digital relationships affect trust and forgiveness today.”

Comments 8: From a stylistic standpoint, the manuscript is generally well written, although minor linguistic errors could be corrected during copyediting. Figures, particularly Figure 3, could be redesigned for greater clarity and visual coherence.

->Response 8: Thank you for this kind observation. I have carefully proofread the manuscript to correct minor language issues. Additionally, Figure 3 has been redesigned to improve clarity and visual coherence, especially in the distinction between the two pathways. The revised figure has been updated directly in the manuscript on page13.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Below are the point-by-point responses to your comments. All corresponding revisions have been marked in blue in the re-submitted manuscript for your reference.

2. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: On p. 1, line 32, it reads, “Marriage aims to pursue happiness …”.  I recommend that you avoid “personifying” marriage. Another way to phrase this might be, “many persons engage in marriage as a path towards greater happiness …” or something like this.

->Response 1: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. I have revised the sentence according to your recommendation to avoid personifying “marriage.” The updated sentence emphasizes individual intention and has been modified on page 1, line 32, marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

However, if “many persons engage in marriage as a path towards greater happiness,” then infidelity—violating marital vows—becomes a significant threat to that happiness.

Comments 2: On p. 1, line 41, it reads, “However, infidelity is not limited to Taiwan.” I would delete this sentence. I would also insert a paragraph break in its place.

->Response 2: Thank you for your suggestion. I agree with your comment and have deleted the sentence “However, infidelity is not limited to Taiwan” as recommended. Although the sentence no longer appears in the manuscript, I have inserted a paragraph break at that point (now page 2, line 43) to improve the flow and clarity of the introduction.

Comments 3: On p. 3, the first paragraph is duplicated later in the article (on p. 5, lines 228-238 or so). Please select the most fitting place and delete the other.

->Response 3: Thank you very much for your careful reading and valuable suggestion. I truly appreciate your close attention to the manuscript’s structure. Upon review, I confirmed that the first paragraph on page 3 was inadvertently duplicated on page 5 (lines 228-238). I have removed the redundant paragraph on page 5 to enhance clarity and coherence. This revision is reflected in the updated manuscript.

Comments 4: On p. 3, lines 103-104, the parenthetical citations need to be alphabetized by first author’s last name. This error occurs a couple of times later as well.

->Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. I have reviewed all parenthetical citations in the manuscript and revised them to ensure that the references are listed in alphabetical order by the first author’s last name. For example, the citation on page 3, line 104-105 has been corrected to “(Fincham et al. 2004; Worthington, 2003; Worthington, 2005)”.

Comments 5: On p. 4, line 158, it reads “studies by Cote et al …” by only one study is cited in the References section. Therefore, this should read “a study by Cote et al. …”

->Response 5: Thank you for your attention to this detail. I have revised the sentence on page 4, line 159, to read “a study by Cote et al.” to accurately reflect the citation of a single source. The correction is marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

Recent a study by Côté et al. (2021) reviewed 35 articles on forgiveness and couple interventions, revealing that forgiveness is a complex, iterative, and non-linear process requiring significant involvement from both partners.

Comments 6: On p. 6, lines 244-245, , the parenthetical citations need to be alphabetized by first author’s last name.

->Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. I have revised the in-text citations to follow the correct alphabetical order based on the first author’s last name. The corrected version appears on page 6, line 235-236, and is marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

(Karniol and Čehajić-Clancy 2020; Miller and Worthington 2015; Witvliet et al. 2019)

Comments 7: On p. 7, line 315, I recommend adding a supporting reference/citation.

->Response 7: Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion. I have revised the manuscript to incorporate relevant supporting literature addressing the link between power dynamics and forgiveness behavior. Specifically, the revised paragraph integrates empirical studies that conceptualize transgressions, apologies, and forgiveness as power-related processes (e.g., Zheng and van Dijke, 2020; Woodyatt et al., 2022; Okimoto et al., 2013; Thai et al., 2023). These references have been added to Section 2.3.3 (pages 7, line 301-309) and the References section (nos. 52, 68, and 71), all marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

“Zheng and van Dijke (2020) further argue that when the victim holds greater power than the transgressor, the transgressor may perceive forgiveness as insincere, thereby reducing their motivation for relationship repair. From a broader perspective, transgressions, apologies, and forgiveness can be seen as issues of power and entitlement. Through interpersonal violations, transgressors assert dominance and control, often resulting in diminished agency on the part of victims (Woodyatt et al. 2022). Offering an apology may symbolically transfer power and control back to the victim (Okimoto et al. 2013). Thai et al. (2023) suggest that withholding forgiveness may function as a means for victims to reassert power, potentially threatening the transgressor’s own sense of authority.”

Comments 8: On p. 8, in section 3.1, the shift to first-person singular is a little jarring. It is your choice whether or not to make that shift, but if you do so you might explicitly tell the reader that you are shifting to a first-person, reflexive voice and tone for a moment.

->Response 8: Thank you for this stylistic suggestion. I appreciate your attention to tone and clarity. In response, I have revised the first-person passage in Section 3.1. (page 8, line 356-359) to make the reflexive voice more intentional and appropriate within the context of hermeneutic phenomenology. The revised text clarifies the researcher's positionality and interpretive responsibility. This change is marked in blue in the manuscript.

“This approach requires the researcher to remain constantly aware of their involvement during the research and interpretation processes and to take responsibility for the meanings constructed. Since understanding is inherently situated, the researcher must engage in self-reflection as part of the interpretive process.”

Comments 9: In section 4 (Results), I would have appreciated reading more direct quotations from the participants (wives) themselves. Synopsis is good, but sometimes a fitting direct quote is better. This is not a “demand” but a recommendation for the author to consider.

->Response 9: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. In response, I have revised the Results section by integrating additional direct quotations and case-based narratives throughout Sections 4.1.3 to 4.2.2 (pages 12-14). These changes enhance the connection between thematic interpretation and empirical evidence, allowing the reader to better understand how key categories were grounded in participants’ lived experiences. All additions are marked in blue in the manuscript.

“I told my husband that I could only consider divorcing him if my father passed away... I couldn’t let my father lose face or feel hurt.” [Chris2009])

“Even though I was very angry with him, he truly tried to make amends… I wondered, shouldn’t I be more forgiving? Shouldn’t I forgive someone who sincerely admits his mis-take and apologizes?” [Anne2009]

“I asked myself, why am I forgiving him? Is it because I truly want to, or is it due to outside pressure… because of the children? Or to save face? Am I being too self-sacrificing?” [Anne2014]

“For many years, I never really thought about his affair again. But during the days when I was preparing for divorce, I realized that the affair had already pushed me to build emo-tional boundaries. I had made myself emotionally independent, so he could no longer hurt me the way he did.” [Anne2024]

“Through the meditation course, I was able to release my emotions. I wanted to understand more clearly what I really needed for myself.” [Elle2014]

“I wanted my children to grow up in a safe and stable environment, no matter what their father did… So I went back to school, earned my degree, and became a teacher. Now both of my kids study at the school where I teach. I’ve taken students to science fairs and won awards five years in a row—even took a photo with the president. This is the version of myself that I wanted.” [Dora2024]