The influence of External Factors Upon the Subjective Experience of ones own Relationship Identity- An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

RELATIONSHIP IDENTITY 1
The influence of External Factors Upon the Subjective Experience of ones own
Relationship Identity: An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.
Coventry University

Abstract
The current qualitative study is concerned with providing an exploration
into the role of external factors in the constantly changing subjective experience
of relationship identity. A transcript of a semi-structured interview from a single
participant was analyzed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA),
allowing for the production of a descriptively subjective account. Three core
themes are identified in this analysis; (1) Relationship breakdown, (2)
Hierarchical relationships, (3) Generational disparity. The triad of themes
identified throughout allows for a greater understanding of how external factors
lead to alterations in the subjective experience of ones relationship identity.
Research question
How is the subjective experience of relationship identity altered by external
factors?

Methodology
Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis
Embracing an idiographic approach, (Biggerstaff, & Thompson, 2008),
interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) adopts the theoretical stance
that both historical and sociocultural contexts are at the forefront of how we as
humans come to understand and process information about our lives,
(Shinebourne, 2011). The current study aims to investigate perspectives taken
on friendship, exploring the subjective experiences of the individual in relation
to such a standpoint. In order to meet these aims, IPA is identified as the most
suitable approach to take.
Participant and Data Collection
‘Trevor’ is the pseudonym given to the participant taking part in this
study. All identifying participant information has been adjusted to ensure
confidentiality, in line with ethical principles outlined by the BPS. A semi-
structured face-to-face individual interview was conducted at Liverpool John
Moores University surrounding the topic of friendship and its related facets.
Examples of questions used throughout the interview are: ‘Can you tell me about
your own friends and what they mean to you?’ ‘What does it mean to be friends
with someone?’ The interviewer was not known to the participant. The interview
was audio and video recorded, with the purpose of it being made available online
as a teaching tool. The video recordings were available to download in four

segments, each fifteen minutes in length, with both the participant and
interviewer in clear view with the use of a split screen. The interview was also
available online in both Jeffersonian and playscript transcriptions for analysis
purposes. For the purpose of the current study, the data was obtained from the
‘TORMUL DATASET TEACHING RESOURCES’ webpage. The participant was
informed of the online availability of the interview prior to it taking place,
alongside the right to withdraw the data prior to it being made available online.
The opportunity to review the interview material before it was made publicly
available online was granted to the participant.
Analytical Strategy
The phenomenological analysis was conducted alongside guidelines set
out by Smith, Flowers, & Larkin, (2009). Initially, the interview transcript was
read through a number of times, allowing a familiarity with the account of the
participant to be gained in line with the questions put forward by the
interviewer. Alongside these readings, preliminary notes were made, identifying
any initial interpretations or themes that occurred throughout the text; these
were made in the left hand margin, meanwhile any emergent themes that
occurred relating to key aspects of the passages were noted in the right hand
margin of the page. Any emergent themes, which appeared to relate to one
another, were noted down on a separate sheet of paper, before analyzing them
for suitability against the data. Upon completion of this process, the final
superordinate themes used were produced that are used in this study. After
arriving at all of the final superordinate themes, they were ordered to form a

systematic report. Themes that failed to fit with this systematically developed
structure were not used in the final report. Whilst the process adopted here is
similar to that assumed in grounded theory, IPA is the study of sense making on
a subjectively idiographic level, whilst grounded theory concerns itself with the
study of social processes, (Willig, 2001).
Analysis
Upon conducting analysis of the data sample, a number of gestalts were
identified, however three core themes were ascertained in relation to the
research question; ‘How is the subjective experience of relationship identity
altered by external factors?’. The following themes shall be presented
throughout this paper:
 Relationship Breakdown
 Hierarchical Relationships
 Generational Disparity
Relationship Breakdown
The theme ‘relationship breakdown’ encapsulates the external factors
responsible for the disintegration, and in some cases, the eventual collapse of
certain relationships throughout Trevor’s life, with close reflection upon how
these breakdowns in friendships have changed the way he views his overall
relationship identity.

‘I’d known him for a long time, but er he started taking drugs and he changed….he
changed so much that er you know had to walk away’
With reference to the external factor of substance abuse, there is a
prominent feeling in the above extract that Trevor’s friend no longer shares the
same attributes and characteristics that Trevor values in a friendship, possibly
leading Trevor to feel a loss of a collective identity within the relationship that
the two once shared. In the phrase ‘He changed so much that er you had to walk
away’ there is a sense that Trevor views this parting of a close friendship
negatively, and whilst still possibly regretful of his actions in walking away from
the relationship, felt compelled to walk away at the time due to the influence of
the external factor of drug use upon the changing dynamics of their relationship.
Due to the pure nature of this negative view that Trevor takes regarding the
collapse of the relationship, a feeling that this past experience has had a causal
impact upon his future relationships, and thus his own subjective view on his
own relationship identity is reached.
‘Jim he just er, it just kept getting worse and worse and more selfish and selfish,
saying nasty things about my friend’s wife behind her back and like, and that, and
then you know he was going to my friend and saying stuff about me and he’s like
trying to play us off’
Describing the actions of his friend as ‘selfish’, there is further suggestion
that Trevor feels he has grown further away from the cumulative relationship

identity once shared with Jim, emphasized by Trevor’s recognition of the
newfound egotistical nature that he beholds. In conjunction with this self-
absorbed view of his friend, Trevor goes on to describe how his friend was
unpleasant about another friend’s wife, leading to the assumption that an
evolutionary pack mentality may have developed, with a feeling of responsibility
to defend his friends wife against the unrelenting personal attacks on her,
amounting to a shift in relationship identity from an identity which maintains
peace, to one that aims to guard and protect. Later on in the passage, Trevor
recalls how his friend then went on to talk about him behind his back, and in this
instance it may be observed that Trevor has experienced a metamorphosis in the
relationship, from being a third-person observing attacks on someone else at
arms length, to receiving personal attacks on the self. The effects following such
malfunction in a relationship are clear to see in the following passage:
‘Effects people so you know it’s understandable but you get to a certain point where
you have to think ‘hang on this is just not working’ [INT: mm], I suppose it’s like you
know when you’ve had a bad relationship in the past and you, you know there
comes a time when you say you know hands up you know it’s not doing me any
good you’ve got to, you’ve got to walk away’
Trevor makes the comparison of the breakdown of his friendship with
that of a bad relationship, discussing the way in which the need to walk away in
both circumstances is necessary. Such comparison between the two suggests
past experiences of relationships, which have turned sour, and therefore up to
this point, his identity within relationships is likely to have altered, from that of

sharing a reciprocal bond with another self, to that of having a hostile
relationship with the same individual at a later point in time. This experience is
filled with emotion, and the connotation here is that Trevor once viewed this
particular friendship in the past as a very powerful one, however the time has
come for a conscious uncoupling to occur between the two selves. This aspect of
breaking away from a friendship is emphasised in the phrase ‘It’s not doing me
any good’, here there is a sense of a respect for one’s own emotional feelings,
putting the self at the forefront of importance, and reaching a termination in the
relationship.
Hierarchical Relationships
‘Hierarchical relationships’ represent Trevor’s subjective distinction of
different relationships throughout his life and their individual representations to
him. External environmental factors such as school, work, and university all alter
the subjective perception of one’s identity within relationships, as demonstrated
in the relationship distinctions made in the following extract:
‘Yeah different relationships, some that are more like family, and some are just
people that you go out and have a drink with and you know some like you’ll see like
on a work relationship’
Referring to a hierarchy of friends; family, friends to drink with, and
work-based friendships, Trevor identifies differences in his relationships within
his life; making reference to activities partaken within these friendships e.g.
‘have a drink with’. The constituent categories that Trevor has placed his

respective friendships into shows how Trevor subjectively views each
relationship, and in turn views his own relationship identity with regards to each
individual connection. When referring to relationships revolving around going to
the pub and socializing, Trevor speaks about the other individuals as ‘people’,
whilst the phrase ‘family’ is used to describe closer relationships. There is an
inkling here, judging by the terminology used, that the sense of warmth towards
the two respective relationships is different and thus feelings such as that of
trust may vary between the two contexts, leading to the formation of a
relationship hierarchy existing within Trevor’s life, of which impacts upon his
overall sense of relationship identity. Such relationship disparity is once again
clear in the following extract:
‘I wouldn’t, wouldn’t call them proper friends, but they’re just like you know
associates that you know ‘how are you? And how’s your wife and daughter’ and you
know and it’s like ‘oh how are you and Stephanie?’ in an email and you email back
and if you saw them and that you’d have a pint with them [INT: yeah], or you know
if you saw them in the street you’d stop and shake hands and talk and [INT: yeah]
you know it’s there, it’s a friendship but it’s not a best friend type of friendship’
Using the term ‘wouldn’t’ consecutively when describing the lack of a
‘proper’ friendship between himself and his relationships now with people at his
previous job, Trevor identifies the relationship hierarchy that is so prevalent in
each of our individual lives, and sense of self within the social world. These
individuals are later referred to as ‘associates’, a term connoting relationships
that Trevor gets along with and speaks to, whilst at the same time fails to identify

with them as ‘friends’. Discussing the small talk that Trevor engages in with
these ‘associates’ over email, it becomes apparent that Trevor views his
relationship identity in this particular context as that of a polite engager, with
reciprocal small talk occurring back and forth between him and his ex-
colleagues. Referring to activities that Trevor would engage in if he were to meet
these ‘associates’, he says he would ‘shake hands and talk’, or ‘have a pint with
them’, in this identification of activities that Trevor might do if he were to see his
former colleagues, it is apparent that whilst these individuals may not be all that
close to Trevor, he still views that he would have positive communication with
them, were he to see them again.
Generational Disparity
The third and final theme in this analysis of changes in the subjective
experience of relationship identity is ‘Generational disparity’. This theme refers
to the external factor of the age of others in relation to how Trevor views his
relationship identity when conversing with various individuals.
‘I mean er probably a bit, a bit closer but I mean you know I will, I will talk to the
younger ones about Button Moon although they haven’t got a clue what I’m talking
about’
In this extract, Trevor concedes that he is ‘closer’ to the mature students
comparative to the younger students, an admittance that certifies different
relationship identities that Trevor withholds dependent on the age of the
individual, seemingly sharing closer bonds with his mature student counterparts.

Despite showing evidence of differences in relationship typologies as a factor of
age, Trevor does discuss how he talks to the younger students, whilst
acknowledging that the age disparity between him and them means that they
may not understand all of the references he makes. Whilst the phrase ‘they
haven’t got a clue what I’m talking about’ could be conveyed in either a positively
warm light or a negative light, the term ‘they’ when referring to the younger
cohort suggest that if not externally, Trevor certainly internally views them as
different to himself, with the use of the word ‘them’ symbolic of an ‘us and them’
relationship, arguably referring to the younger students as the out-group. The
distinction here within the young/mature divide is emblematic of Trevor’s in-
house relationship identity, and evidence that his identity with younger and
older students does differ somewhat. This internal distinction is once again
discussed in a more external, sociological fashion:
‘I think it’s different with me cos er you know I know a lot of mature students who
are like ‘we’re mature students, they’re young students’, and it’s like the younger
students ‘we’re young students, they’re mature students’, and, but with my
background it’s like everybody’s a person [INT: well yeah, absolutely], you know
someone talks to me I’m gunna talk back and you know’
In spite of the previous commentary identifying Trevor as holding
internally different relationship identities with both the younger and mature
students, the above passage suggests that Trevor views everybody as a person,
rather than splitting and categorizing; ‘but with my background it’s like
everybody’s a person’. This incongruence between the way Trevor comes across

(as internally categorizing the young/old, yet externally remarking how he views
everyone the same) may represent differences between Trevor’s subconscious
and conscious relationship identity, subconsciously categorizing the young from
the old, whilst consciously viewing people as the same regardless of variations in
age.
‘I suppose that’s the psychology side, you sit there you know and you listen to them,
you know like people with stories about the war, and then you know younger
people have got their own stories [INT: yeah], and you know it’s, it’s good er, it’s
been a good like building block for me to you know learn how to talk to, talk to
people and interact with different people so I mean I’m lucky I suppose’
Referring to the role of listening skills and the implementation of
psychology when conferring with both the young and the old, Trevor discusses
the effect that age as an external factor has upon the conversation between him
and his younger/older counterparts. Trevor refers to himself as ‘lucky’ in that he
is able to interact with different people of different ages, and through such
variations in communication and contact, it is apparent that Trevor’s
relationship identity changes over time dependent upon external factors, such as
generational disparity.
Discussion
The purpose of the current study was to investigate how the subjective
experience of relationship identity was altered through external factors in ones

life. Specific focus was placed upon understanding this experience in relation to
relationship breakdown, relationship hierarchy, and generational disparity.
Whilst the use of a single participant in the current study results in a lack
of generalizability regarding alterations in relationship identity dependent upon
external factors, the study does shed light upon reasons for ones subjective
relationship identity to change through the progression of time, with the
influence of external, uncontrollable factors (e.g. work commitments, age, and
lifestyle change). The primary role of IPA is to take an idiographic view upon the
subjective behaviours of individuals, and therefore analysis of a larger sample
size is not necessarily warranted. As a consequence of the double hermeneutic
process of IPA, conclusions made upon the data are a fine assortment of the
participants’ own thoughts and feelings, and my own subjective interpretations,
therefore precaution should be sought when drawing conclusions from the
findings of this current study.
In relation to overall findings from the current study, it is undisputable
that external factors such as those investigated, (relationship breakdown,
hierarchy of relationships, and age variations) have a substantive and very
profound effect upon how the individual self recognizes their own relationship
identity. In the current study, it is apparent that the subjective experience of
relationship breakdown has numerous implications upon the self, and has the
ability to alter ones relationship identity from that of an observer in a
relationship, to that of an individual whom is directly targeted by another
individual, a transgression from a strong, in control subjective relationship

identity, to that of a vulnerable individual within the relationship setting.
Additionally, in the second analytical theme, ‘hierarchical relationships’ evidence
is shown for differences in perceived closeness in a relationship that may
influence how the subject internally reflects upon and views that particular
bond, with differences in relationship hierarchy relative to the particular setting,
(e.g. university, work etc.). The third and final theme, ‘generational disparity’
looks into how age variations impact upon the relationship identity of ones self.
We see in this theme that differences in age do significantly impact upon how an
individual perceives their own identity within a relationship.
Whilst interpretative phenomenological analysis was employed as the
method of analysis in this instance, previous research into friendship has used
discourse analysis to provide accounts of various language features in
relationship and friendship domains. Whilst discourse analysis as an analytical
method provides an understanding of the speech and language features used in
various contexts, the current study is aimed at gaining an interpretative
understanding of relationship identity, of which would not have been possible
had discourse analysis been applied.
Future research within the interpretive paradigm investigating
relationship identity could seek to investigate gender differences in the
formation of relationship identity, with specific attention paid to various life
course transitions (e.g. parenthood) as external factors. The findings from the
current study have no comparative findings from other studies, and therefore

further interpretive studies into relationship identity should be encouraged in
order to further expand the literature.

References
Biggerstaff, D., & Thompson, A, R. (2008). ‘Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis (IPA): A Qualitative Methodology of Choice in Healthcare Research’
Qualitative Research in Psychology, 5(3), 214-224.
British Psychological Society. (n.d.). ‘Ethical principles for conducting research
with human participants’.
Shinebourne, P. (2011). Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. In N. Frost
(ed). Qualitative Research Methods in Psychology: Combining core approaches.
Open University, 44-65.
Smith, J, A., Flowers, P., & Larkin, M. (2009). ‘Interpretative Phenomenological
Analysis: Theory, Method, and Research’. Sage Publications.
Willig, C. (2001) Introducing Qualitative Research in Psychology: Adventures in
Theory and Method. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Appendix

The influence of External Factors Upon the Subjective Experience of ones own Relationship Identity- An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (9)

Similar to The influence of External Factors Upon the Subjective Experience of ones own Relationship Identity- An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.

Similar to The influence of External Factors Upon the Subjective Experience of ones own Relationship Identity- An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. (18)

The influence of External Factors Upon the Subjective Experience of ones own Relationship Identity- An Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis.