Sociology

What are Maladaptive Behaviors

    Straus and Linsky (1986) described maladaptive behavior to be a broad category, which involved different possible responses to stress and behaviors that were considered to be harmful to the health or the survival of the individual.  Tucker, Vogel, Keefer,  Reid (2002) plainly described these behaviors that get teenagers in trouble and as behaviors that were not conventionally accepted in society.  Maladaptive behaviors, especially in a teenagers life, were considered to bring about academic and social failure because of the idea of not fitting in.     

    Maladaptive behaviors could also be described as the kind of behaviors that show the persons incapability to healthily adapt to ones environment and circumstances (Ankrom, 2009).  This was the kind of behavior that was used to decrease ones level of anxiety, but could end up being dysfunctional and even counter-productive.   This reflected the existence of poor decision-making skills and the low levels of coping skills in individuals.

    Straus and Linsky (1986) presented significant indicators to recognize maladaptive behavior. Accidents were one of the indicators for such behavior because engaging in dangerous behavior or the inability to take proper precaution could bring about accidents. Accidents were also considered as some form of social pathology, which indicated a disorder in the persons social or cognitive system because of the failure to avoid dangerous situations.

    Furthermore, Straus  Linsky (1986) also regarded alcoholism and heavy smoking to be indicators of maladaptive behavior.   The prevalence of these behaviors in an individual reflected a disregard for ones health, which is maladaptive and destructive in nature.  In relation to this, suicide was also an indicator.  Evidently, suicide was considered as the ultimate form of self-destruction and served as an indicator for a wide array of problems in the social system (Straus  Linsky, 1986).

    Tucker et al. (2002) viewed self-control as a variable in maladaptive behavior.  In their study, it was something African Americans sought after, a reason why they engage in maladaptive behavior.  Young people with the greater ability to control or self-regulate were viewed to have lower levels of maladaptive behavior, thus those with lower levels of self-control exhibited higher levels of maladaptive behavior (Tucker et al., 2002).  It appeared that external control was not as important as internal feelings of control when it came to predicting maladaptive behavior.  When children struggle with internal feelings of self-control it results in maladaptive behavior.  Tucker et al. (2002) pointed out that perceived self-control is an important element in the regulation of behavior (p. 220).

    Furthermore, Tucker et al. (2002) recognized that variables that influenced the maladaptive behavior of teenagers, especially African-Americans, such as poverty and minority status were still unyielding.  Straus  Linsky (1986) stressful events were also viewed as significant indicators of maladaptive behavior, which reflected to be more significantly evident with women.

Historical Overview
    In the 1980s, there were behavioral intervention programs that were directed towards the identification of functions that challenged behavior, as well as the systematic reinforcement of desired behaviors, as an alternative to punishment (Scott, Nelson, Liaupsin, Jolivette, Christle,  Riney, 2003).  As early as those times, there were already intervention strategies that were geared towards addressing maladaptive behavior and lessening its risk factors.  During this time, the existing strategies for intervention were disciplinary in nature because maladaptive behavior often resulted in juvenile delinquency. 

    When it came to chronic stress, the stressors in the 19th century were described to contribute to alcoholism, as the most common maladaptive behavior.   In 1986, Straus  Linsky discussed about the correlation of maladaptive behavior and social stress.  Even then, their data showed that the higher the level of the social state, the more common maladaptive behavior was in a particular state.  Furthermore, the correlations were significantly greater for women than with men.  Sex difference was observed to be critical when it came to the difference in suicides rates, as the rate of deaths were greater in females than males during their study.  On the other hand, lung cancer, as a result of the maladaptive behavior of smoking, was more evident in men than women (Straus  Linsky, 1986). 

     Going back to the prevalence of suicide, as a maladaptive behavior during this time, Straus  Linsky (1986) showed that public assistance that were lower increased the rate of suicides and when public assistance were higher, these rates were lowered.  This study was done across the state and reflected the effectiveness of public support in the decrease of the most dangerous maladaptive behavior.  Public assistance levels were viewed to be a critical measure of social integration.


Introduction to the Literature Review

    The intent of this proposed is to discover and to understand the principal dynamics that will lead to maladaptive behaviors among juvenile females aged 13- 17 years old, while living in the residential care centers in Tomball, Texas.  Findings from this study will be used to explore the attitudes and the beliefs of the population, which contributed to the display of maladaptive behavior. 

    High-risk population among the youth included those that reflected anti-social behavior and have experienced involvement with the juvenile justice system.  These young people were viewed to be at-risk for life-long failure if their problems were not adequately addressed.   There was a significant difference between young people that exhibited pro-social and anti-social behavior.  Brady (2002) pointed out that there were commonly signs that served as determinants of the absence of normative aspects of social, as well as moral development.  In contrast, it was also identifiable when young individuals have non-normative behavior, which could progress to juvenile delinquency, repeated offensive conduct, and maladaptive behaviors. 

    As children grow up, they experience transitional transformation in terms of physical, emotional, cognitive, as well as behavioral aspects of their lives.  Brady (2002) noted that these changes appear simultaneously during the adolescent stage of a persons life.  One form of change was also noted to have a significant impact on the other forms of changes. For example, physical changes could bring about emotional changes in a female teenager.  Moreover, there would also be social environments, such as schools, that allow for these changes to progress into social development for the child.  As children undergo this transitional phase, the children mature into adolescents. 

    However, there would be individuals who would be unable to experience normative transitions into adolescent maturity because of different reasons.  The transition phase represented a difficult time in any persons life.  Nonetheless, children that failed to experience sufficient factors that promote healthy development could be susceptible to experiencing maladaptive behaviors.  This served as early signs of problems in the young persons life and development.  Saleebey (2001) pointed out that, every maladaptive response or pattern of behavior may also contain the seeds of a struggle for health and self-righting (p. 78).

    The theoretical framework will include a number of significant theories that would be discussed in order to address the different facets of this study.  The Self-Regulation Theory and Attachment Theory are included to explain the presence of maladaptive behaviors among teenagers.  Psychosocial theories will also be presented in order to shed light into the different maladaptive behaviors, such as aggression, running away and self-injurious behavior.

    The literary themes that will be presented in the current literature review will include the descriptions of the different kinds of maladaptive behaviors, specifically aggression, running away and self-injurious behavior.  The other themes will illustrate what research studies revealed to be predictors or factors that could have resulted in maladaptive behavior.  These themes included peer pressure, lack of family support, restricted living environments.

This chapter uses the approach for a qualitative research, wherein studies will be presented, analyzed and synthesized according to the purposes of a phenomenological study.

Theoretical Framework
Behavioral Theories and Teenagers
    These theories will provide the foundations for this study.  It begins with a discussion as to why the youth was a particular focus for the discussion of maladaptive behaviors.  Two specific behavioral theories would address the susceptibility of teenagers to non-normative conduct.

Self-Regulation Theory
    According to B.F. Skinner (as cited in Mithaug, 1993, p. 14), organisms must adapt to new situations, resolve conflicts, find quick solutions.  The theory of self-regulation was about adaptation to change.  As mentioned, it was during the adolescent stage when individuals experience an array of transitional experiences in different aspects of their lives.   While there had been significant correlations that had been done over the decades with different predictors and maladaptive behaviors, much of these studies were not based on behavioral theoretical foundations.  This resulted in the less than effective manner of predicting, controlling and modifying behavior, especially in teenagers and children. 

Edelson (1992) offered one of the pioneer theories for maladaptive behavior in the youth with the self-regulation paradigm by Goldstein and Kafner, which was developed in 1986.  According to this paradigm, children or young people who exhibited antisocial behaviors reflected lesser pro-social goals and had lower levels of self-control (Edelson, 1992).   In spite of this, her sample only included European-American children and the application of this study was limited to minority groups that were exposed to a more diverse array of stressors. 

Goldstein and Kafner (as cited in Tucker et al., 2002) asserted that the occurrence of a behavior was due to the level by which the behavior was under ones control, the individuals level of motivation to engage in a specific behavior, the degree of social support for such displaying a particular conduct.  This theory could direct the conclusion of the research to explain why certain beliefs and attitudes of the participants of this study resulted in maladaptive behaviors.  It showed that specific beliefs and attitudes connected to control, motivation, and social support were strong factors to bring about this behavior.

    Since the African American youth were more likely than European Americans to be socially and economically disadvantaged, they were viewed to be at a higher risk of engaging in maladaptive behaviors, as well as academic underachievement and failure (Tucker et al., 2002).  These disadvantages they encounter also placed them at a higher risk of legal consequences.  This was regarded to have a more broad implication when it came to the self-regulation theory, with factors such as pro-social goals and self-control.   According to the Difference Model from Oyemade and Rosser in the year 1980, there were cultural differences that could be perceived between different racial groups in terms of social, cognitive and performance (Tucker et al., 2002).
Attachment Theory

     Lyddon and Sherry (2002) described the attachment theory as an important conceptual framework that provided psychological implications about why teenagers engaged in maladaptive behavior in terms of providing significant implications when it came to counseling young people that engaged in maladaptive behavior.

    The attachment theory originated from the research of John Bowlby, who trained in the psychoanalytic method.   Under this theory, it reflected that there were specific qualities that could be associated with the bond between the caregiver (mother or not) and the child in the regulation of the childs emotional development for rest of his or her life (Lyddon  Sherry, 2001).  According to this theory, infants were equipped biologically since birth with a behavioral and motivational system that matures through the promotion of proximity with the caregiver.  Thus, close relationships and proximities formed together because it provided the infants the sense of safety and protection, which was noted to increase the infants chance to survive.  The separation of the infant from the caregiver could threaten the bond, which could result in behavioral displays that would seek to bring back the proximity between the infant and the caregiver usually crying was a common manifestation  (Lyddon  Sherry, 2001).

    A major point for this theory was that infants developed working models or cognitive expectations as a result of the responsiveness and the accessibility of the caregiver, as well as their personal capacity to elicit responses that would allow them to get what they wanted from the caregiver  (Lyddon  Sherry, 2001).  Each person was said to have an internal working model of a set of beliefs about ones worth and competence as an individual, which developed even as early as ones infant stage in life.  It widely affected how a person would navigate life and explain a lot about the persons behavioral patterns growing up.   The lack of security and self-worth could possibly manifest in the lack of self-control, thus the increase in maladaptive behavior.


Maladaptive Behavior and Psychosocial Theories

    There were different manifestations of maladaptive behaviors.  However, the focus of this study was only aggression, running away and self-injurious behavior.  These reflected the significant conduct that will be closely observed among the participants.  There were different psychosocial theories that were geared towards explaining what could bring about these behaviors. 

    Aggression.  There were also different theories about how children could develop antisocial behavior, such as violence and delinquency (Herrenkohl, Hill, Chung, Guo,  Abbott,  Hawkins, 2003).  The social development model (SDM), the risk of developing antisocial behavior among teenagers could be lessened if the youth experienced pro-social influences from the community, the families, schools and peer networks, especially when the young person develops trust in support of that positive behavior.  On the other hand, it was also probable that involvement in antisocial behavior could increase when exposed to similar antisocial factors in the same social groups (Herrenkohl et al., 2003).  Even if children exhibited aggression at the early ages of 10 to 11, if they were exposed to strong bonds at school, experienced academic achievement and had pro-social skills, they were less likely to participate in juvenile delinquent behaviors when they would be teenagers. 

    Running Away. Nesmith (2006) introduced the Cumulative Risk Theory to explain runaway behavior among teenagers.  It was used to determine the risk factors for different problems that emerge during the period of adolescence.  While there were little studies that tackled the behavior of running away, the Cumulative Risk Theory contributed to the exploration of risk factors that brought about this behavior based on different social systems. This theory was based on attachment and normative development processes and outcomes that brought about possible risk factors.

    The high cumulative number for stressful events such as chronic family discord, poverty, foster home placement, and divorce were factors that were related to running away from home (Nesmith, 2006).  Even if many of the elements could serve as a predictor to this behavior, there was no model that was based on it.   Furthermore, sexual identity was also a factor in this behavior.  However, due to the sensitivity and social stigma associated to homosexuality, this was not extensively discussed.  Most of the time, teenagers run away because they find their homes ill-equipped to handle the needs of gays and lesbians and the inability of these homes to protect them from harassment and isolation, which created in them social isolation and low self-esteem (Nesmith, 2006).

    Self-Injury.  There were also critical theories that were related to self-injurious behavior.  According to McGilley (2004), survivors of self-hurting behaviors viewed their acts to numb out or to address internal feelings that they considered to be impossible to tolerate (p. 77).   Habits of self-injury turned into acts wherein they perceive to be helping themselves.  They view these acts to be enabling themselves to reestablish contact with the world.  Since they did not have the normative capacities to cope with their emotions and their circumstances, they turn to maladaptive behaviors such as self-injury to self-sooth or self-regulate (McGilley, 2004).   They view this to be a relief from deeper feelings of emptiness, shame, tension, rage and other forms of emotional pain, which they needed to mitigate through physical pain (McGilley, 2004).  Such teenagers viewed physical pain to be more bearable than mental anguish.  Thus, theories about self-injurious behaviors regard this act to be self-saving, rather than self-destructive from the perspective of the self-injurer.

    According to McGilley, existing theories on this behavior lacked the cultural and sociopolitical context by which this became an endemic among young people.  The feminist theory described the patriarchal culture to be driven by power, dominated by men, wherein females were treated as objects.  Within this perspective, self-inflicted injuries were done as individual acts of liberation or rebellion against society, even if they were misdirected and dangerous to the self-injurer (McGilley, 2004).

     In the broadest context, this theory spoke about changing social and political structures through the promotion of feminist consciousness.  Thus, from a feminist perspective, womens bodies were subjected to constrictions, which push them to self-injurious behavior.  This was something that was observed in young teenage girls. Due to the patriarchal pressures on society on these young women, self-injurious behaviors were done mostly by young girls in order to free themselves of such pressures.  Furthermore, it could also be their way of expressing their rebellion towards different things, not necessarily male-dominated aspects of their lives, but against everything that restricted them to being that they felt they were.

Bridging the Gaps or Resolving the Controversies
According to Ginwright, Cammarota, Noguerra (2006), there were significant points that advanced theories about maladaptive behavior and the youth, which widely involved the youths differential images, such as being perceived as problem and possibility-driven frameworks.  The theories that were discussed in this section offered behavioral and psychosocial explanations for maladaptive behaviors in teenagers.  However, there were still opposing approaches that were observed for youth studies. 

The first framework, the youth as problems to be fixed, reflected the central problems of the youth, such as delinquency, substance abuse and violence. These frameworks could be relevant to this study because they offer different approaches to the problem of maladaptive behaviors to female juvenile delinquents.  The understanding of the possible perspectives through these frameworks provided a social theoretical conception that could influence the direction of this study.

    The perspective of violent and high-risk behavior among the youth was a function brought about by the local beliefs and values that were rooted on economic deprivation (Ginwright et al., 2005).   There was also connotation about the differences between street and decent families that was viewed to mitigate youth violence.  Street youth were stereotyped to be violent, rebellious and without hope, as they celebrate illegal activities (Ginwright et al., 2005). 

The problem emerged because social scientists only focused on the problem behavior as the source for their academic failure and unemployment could hinder the understanding of the structural, as well as institutionalized patterns of oppression that served as the root causes of the behavior, the failure and the delinquency.  Ginwright et al. (2005) pointed out that within this framework, the focus is controlling the youth behaviors, without restructuring the policies and practices that brought about these behaviors in the first place.

The alternative framework showed the possibilities of youth for development.  Instead of focusing on the youth problems, this perspective allowed researchers to concentrate on understanding the available resources that the youth needed in order to experience a healthy development and constructive approaches that would enable them to redefine their roles in society (Ginwright et al., 2005).  This framework was based on positive youth development that viewed the youth to be possible agents for their self-worth, as well as their self-awareness.

However, while this perspective provided an alternative to focusing only on problems, this framework was also deficient because it failed to understand how political and economic factors could shape the process. The analysis of the youth also became limited to the individual actions, instead of the patterns of injustice, especially in urban communities (Ginwright et al., 2005).  This made this framework fragmented and ineffective as a social theory, which left it disconnected to issues of identity, community dynamics, political and economy issues and how they shaped the youths lives.

Second, this framework, similar to the former discussed, made the youth the objects of the policy, instead of being actors that enabled them to shape policy (Ginwright et al., 2005).  Due to the resistance and challenges to unjust institutional practice that young people exhibit, they could become worthy players in the discussion regarding their welfare and development.  Finally, there was also a need to have a framework that could capture the realities of social, political and economic forces in the lives of these young people (Ginwright et al., 2005).

The controversy regarding the opposing perceptions regarding teenagers will be addressed by this study in terms of finding the middle ground between solving the problem of the youth and capitalizing on the their potentials.  The potential findings will offer what the participants believed and will uncover the attitudes they have towards life and society.  This would explain why there is a problem, using the first framework of viewing the youth as problem.  Alternatively, the recommended treatments that could emerge from this study will be presented under the implications that the youth had significant potentialities.

Review of the Critical Literature
This section will discuss the major themes about current studies.  They hold significant importance for the research endeavor in terms of the recognition for the nature of maladaptive behavior, as well as the predictors for aggravating the potential for these behaviors to develop.
Nature and Kinds of Maladaptive Behaviors

    There were different kinds of maladaptive behaviors.  They all related to the response mechanism of teenagers towards certain demanding situations in their lives.  These behaviors were described to be destructive because of the incapability of individuals to cope in a healthy manner against life stressors.

    Aggression. There were different natures and types of aggression.  It was considered as a behavior that included overt action, which could be observed by others.  On the other hand, anger was just an emotion or a subjective state of feeling that could be experienced by the person who was feeling this.  Furthermore, aggression was something that was noted to have a hostile intent  (Moeller, 2001).

     While non-aggressive acts could also cause damage, they lacked the intentional factor.  Aggression was also something that induced psychological harm, rather than physical.  It could also be directed to non-humans, such as animals.  For example, if a boy intended to kick a cat to harm it.  This was destructive behavior.  There were studies that focused on the why young people participate in aggressive and violent behaviors.  They questioned what made them act in such manners and what feelings they had to behave in those destructive ways. 

    Moeller (2001) described aggression to pertain to an act that harmed either an object or a person.  While some behaviors that inflicted harm were not intentional, psychological studies reveal that aggressiveness should be qualified only as an act that had the intention to induce harm.  According to Bartol (as cited in Moeller 2001) behavior perpetrated or attempted with the intention of harming another individual physically or psychologically (as opposed to socially) or to destroy an object (p. 2).  Thus, aggression was not limited to physical harm, as it could include verbal harm and it could have different levels of intensity.

    Aggression and violence were often used interchangeably.  However, violence could be limited to the serious or extreme manifestations of aggression (Moeller, 2001).  The most serious forms of violence could be considered to be criminal violence, in the forms of homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault (Moeller, 2001).

    While there were cases wherein aggression was viewed to be in the realms of the normal and the unexpected, it becomes a maladaptive behavior in the perspective of hyper aggression.  This was a term that was used to characterize young people whose aggression they could not control and was not in the normal range, according to their age, gender, and other personal characteristics (Moeller, 2001).  Hyper aggressive teenagers were described to exhibit acts of aggression in a more frequent manner, with greater intensity or for longer duration, in compared to other children their age.

    Both aggression and violence could be considered as antisocial behavior.  This behavior was defined as something that went against the moral, ethical or legal norms of society (Moeller, 2001).  Youth who were hyper aggressive were observed to engage in these behaviors through lying, stealing and substance abuse.

    According to Larsen and Dehle (2007), youth violence was described to be a prevalent problem in society.  This was rooted out of the concern for adolescent aggression.  This was a concern that was manifested by the increase in juvenile crime and arrests for violent crimes, which increased by 75 percent over the period of 10 years, from 1984 to 1994 (Larsen and Dehle, 2007).  

    Herrenkolh et al. (2003) described aggressive children to be at risk of serious and chronic violent behavior.  The relationship between early aggression and alter violence was often studied in aggression literature.  Teachers that found boys and girls to be aggressive during the time that they were in school were predicted to be arrested for violent crimes by the age of 33 and according to the findings of this study, half of the predicted group of aggressive children were arrested (Herrenkohl et al., 2003).

    According to Lossel  Bender (2006), schools formed an important part of the childrens lives.  There were significant factors that were affected by violence among school children, such as academic failure due to bullying, exclusion and damaged mental health, as well as behavioral disorders.  Bullying was a form of aggression and sometimes violence.  It was described as the repeated predatory activity that was done to intimidate and harm individuals through the use of force (Lossel  Bender, 2006).  It was also characterized to be repeated over time and done to have an imbalance of power between the bully and the victim.

    The worst cases of aggression and violence in the school setting would be the recent occurrence of school shootings in the country.  This represented the problem of this maladaptive behavior, when left unaddressed.  Larson (2005) stressed that beyond homicide, school violence was a real problem.  The more obvious forms of physical aggression and illegal acts included chronic bullying, name calling, sexual harassment, social exclusion and mean-spirited teasing.  These were considered to be forms of violence within the school and provided significant harm for the psychological, physical, emotional health of the students. 

    Field (2002) described one-third to one-half of clinic referrals among teenagers and children to be for aggression and conduct disorder problems.  This was a significant rate, which should be considered as a very real problem.  The homicide rate for the teenagers in the country was considered to be the highest in the industrialized nations of the globe by about 20 times higher than any other country (Field, 2002).

    Negative emotional affect, such as depression and anxiety were also identified to predispose children and teenagers that had antisocial or aggressive behaviors.  Anxiety and depression were emotional problems for students with conduct disorders (Field, 2002).   Furthermore, children with conduct disorders and were violent were also described to have less physically intimate relationships, as they were teenagers.  This was a factor that was caused by their aggression and that have caused their aggression (Field, 2002).

    According to Leschied, Cummings, Van Brunschot, Cunningham,  Saunders, (2001), violence by adolescent girls was increasingly prevalent.  While there appeared to be little studies that discussed about the differential rates of violence between girls and boys, there were almost no differences in statistics when it came the rates of aggressions that males and females engaged in.

    Pepler and Craig (2005) discussed about the aggression of girls through theoretical perspectives and presented a developmental profile of the girls aggression.  The nature and form of aggression in individuals changes over time.  Due to maturation, the child is influenced by social interactions and expectations form society.  Both boys and girls could experience aggression in their toddler years.  However, as they learned that these strategies were not adaptive, they acquired the skills to maintain positive interactions (Pepler  Craig, 2005).  Children who maintain maladaptive behaviors were said to have experienced negative parenting styles or negative peer interactions. 

    As children aged, the opportunities to teach positive adaptation skills would lessen for both boys and girls. A girls aggression could predict later aggressive tendencies over different developmental transitions, which could be similar to predictions for boys Pepler  Craig, 2005).  While physical aggression was not commonly observed in most girls, the more subtle form is more indirect and covert, which were called relational and social aggression.  This could be distinguished through the collusion, exclusion, alienation, ostracism and character defamation that even young girls were capable of (Pepler  Craig, 2005).  Girls were viewed to be more advanced when it came to developmental transitions from physical to social forms of aggression.  According to Pepler and Craig (2005), the frequency of aggression among boys and girls did not differ in frequency, but in form.

    Running Away. According to Shaffner (1998), runaway behavior was perceived to be done out of the search for freedom from what teenagers considered to be abusive treatment, which could be in the forms of physical, sexual and emotional accounts.  Most of the time, running away from home was a behavior that was considered as a last resort.  Nevertheless, Shaffner (1998) noted that teenagers did not consider running away to be irreparable break from their families and that there were many runaway youths that would express reconciliation with their families. 

    There were at least 12 percent of American youths that run away at least once before they reach the age of 18 (Shaffner, 1998).  In one night, there could be a million teenage runaways on the streets of the city.  These teenagers could come from different population groups, regardless of race, household type and economic status.  Teenagers did not just run away from home, sometimes they also run away from shelters, foster care of residential treatment facilities (Shaffner, 1998).

     According to the social bond theory, delinquency occurred when the youths moral, emotional and psychological ties with society experience a weakening or is eliminated.  On the other hand, the covenant theory expresses that when ones connection with the family existed delinquency was lessened.  Thus, for the runaway, the social covenant has already been broken (Shaffner, 1998).

    The risk of running away was also serious.  Usually runaways end up in social service or in a juvenile probation facility from police stations or hospital emergency rooms (Shaffner, 1998).  They were commonly caught stealing, selling drugs and prostitution.  Most of the time, it was unaddressed physical, emotional and sexual abuses that push teenagers to run away.  According to the study Shaffner (1998) conducted about 77 percent of the runaways they surveyed were physically abused and 35 percent were sexually abused in their families of origin.

    Mostly, the homes for youths that run away were described to be unbearable.  These teenagers reported that while they loved their parents, they were also angry with them.  It was this struggle to reconcile powerful and conflicting emotions that they struggled with and made them run away from them (Shaffner, 1998).

    Furthermore, teenagers ran away in search for a connection they did not feel at home.  The bond they had with the home was described to have crumbled or in the process of doing so and this becomes a crucial role in the behavior.  Runaways viewed escaping home to having rise above the ashes of dysfunctional family relationships (Shaffner, 1998).  These teenagers also looked for protection through emotional connections, physical and psychological nurturing.  Since they were not able to find them in their families, they feel enough hurt to make them run away and find stability in another place.  Usually, they run to neighbors, friends and other people whom they perceive to be able to provide them with the love and protection they need.

    According to Springer (1998), young people run away due to the pattern of family breakdown.  Usually, this was accompanied by parental rejection and abuse.  This could also be a product of school problems.   Runaway and homeless youths were described to suffer from depression (Springer, 1998).  Most of the time, runaway teenagers viewed themselves with low self-worth. They would also have histories with substance abuse.

    Whitbeck, Hoyt, Johnson,  Chen (2007) described the vulnerability posed by running away and being homeless teenagers to be close to being in a war zone.  The greatest risk that they would be exposed to was posttraumatic stress  (Whitbeck, et al., 2007).  When a teenager runs away from home and makes his or her way in the streets, it places on them significant dangers and worries.  Being homeless provided great stress to adults, it would be even more stressful and traumatic for adolescents, whose vulnerability was increased during this developmental stage and within the societal norms that they needed adult protection (Whitbeck, et al., 2007).

    Johnson, Rew and Kouzekanani (2006) described running away to be more identified with females, than males.  This was attributed to the fact that more girls were victims of sexual abuse in their homes, in comparison to males.  Furthermore, sexual health practices were also at risk when teenagers run away from home.  Since they ran away looking for connection, they could end up looking for it in all the wrong places.  They were usually exposed to dangerous sexual health practices such as unprotected sexual intercourse and the use of alcohol and other drugs with partners they could meet on the streets (Johnson et al., 2006).  Moreover, since they experienced unprotected sexual intercourse, they were also more likely to contract sexually transmitted diseases or infections.  Johnson et al. (2006) pointed out that homeless or runaway teenagers engaged in early and risky sexual behaviors and that 90 percent of these youths had sexual intercourse at least once when they were aged 13-16 years old.

    Self-Injurious Behaviors.  The Virginia Commission on Youth (2003) characterized self-injury (SI) or self-mutilation or cutting, as a highly stigmatized emotional disorder.  About one percent of Americans suffer from this behavior.  While it could occur in individuals regardless of age, gender, racial or economic group, this behavior was observed to begin during the adolescent stage of a persons life.  Groups that were at risked of this behavior were usually females aged 16 to 25 years of age.

    SI was described to be repetitive and deliberate.  The intention of the self-injurer was to inflict harm over ones own body.  Usually, these injuries could be harmful enough to damage the tissue.   This was done through cutting, carving, scratching, burning, bruising, biting, hitting, bone breaking, skin-picking, hair-pulling, branding and marking (White Kress, 2003)

    It was considered to be a maladaptive behavior that was done as a coping mechanism, as discussed in the theoretical conception of this behavior.   Due to emotional stress, young people engage in SI to relieve themselves from tension they feel psychologically.  Pain was considered to be tension release and others need to see blood to gain a sense of relief marking (Virginia Commission on Youth, 2003).

    According to White Kress, Gibson and Reynolds (2004), about 13 percent of adolescents in their study engaged in such kind of behaviors.  It was also discussed that SI was not limited to the mentally retarded and the developmentally disabled part of the population, like was previously expected, but to the general teenage population (White Kress et al., 2004).

    While the culture because acceptable to some forms of SI behaviors such as piercing, tattooing and other forms of body piercing, the deviant forms of SI included physically damaging one self during psychological crises (White Kress et al., 2004).  These acts for these people give them a sense of disconnection and alienation from others and the causes of their problems.

    Self-cutting was a common form of self-injury.  The body parts that were typically injured were the arms, wrists, legs, abdomen, head, chest, and genitals.  However, there was a line between SI and suicidal tendencies. SI behaviors were described to be the volitional act to harm ones body, lacking the intention to die as a result of such actions (White Kress et al., 2004).

    As mentioned, gender issues were present with regards to self-injury.  Females were more likely to do this than males.  White Kress et al. (2004) described who self-injure were identified to have specific reasons for SI behaviors, such as the concrete pain from psychological weaknesses was overwhelming for them to hand.  They also desired to reduce the numbness through the promotion of a sense of what was real.  They wanted to keep traumatic memories from coming back, thus the pain distracted them.  They received support and care from others when they were healing from their wounds.  It was a way to discharge their anger, anxiety and expressions of disappointment, usually toward themselves.  Related to this, it was also a form of self-punishment.  Finally, it was a way to enhance their self-esteem.  There were significant predictors for SI behaviors, such as the loss of a parent, childhood illness, a history of sexual abuse, family violence and familial self-injury (White Kress et al., 2004).  Wagner  Rehfuss (2008) discussed the root causes of SI behaviors to be from invalidating environments, past trauma, depression and attention seeking precursors.

    The Virginia Commission on Youth (2003) identified risk factors that were attributed to SI.  One of the risks was being a member of the at-risk group, which was viewed to have a low chance to have a good life as an adult.  Second, the risk of being unable to cope with increased psychological tension in a healthy manner was also considered.  There were feelings of depression, rejection, isolation and self-hatred that were associated with SI behavior.  Sometimes, they have command hallucinations and need for sensory stimuli.  Furthermore, these behaviors could also result in a dysfunctional future family.

    A physical cause was associated with this condition.  According to studies, self-injurers were found to have low serotonin levels in the brain (Virginia Commission on Youth, 2003).  Furthermore, they also reveal that there were fewer platelet imipramine-binding sites, which served as a marker for serotonin activity in the brain.

    Muehlenkamp (2006) said that the standard treatment for this behavior had been hospitalization.  However, this was considered as an expensive option with an unreliable level of effectiveness for suicidal and non-suicidal SI.  There were little empirical data that offered treatment guidelines for SI behavior because of the ethical and legal risks that were involved in large-scale treatment studies of self-injurers.

     Stone and Sias (2003) described the profile of a self-injurer as a female in her mid-20s to 30s, and someone who had been hurting herself since her teens.  They classified a self-injurer to be in the middle or upper-middle class, intelligent, well educated and coming from a background of abuse, with at least one alcoholic parent. Stone and Sias (2003) described a self-injurer to be emotionally inarticulate and emotionally imperceptive, unable to find the right language to express her emotions.  Furthermore, she could also be suffering from anti-social, obsessive-compulsive disorder or multiple-personality disorder.

    There were different reasons as to why teenagers engaged themselves in maladaptive behavior.  The different kinds of maladaptive behaviors that were presented here represented differential and similar needs from teenagers that were not able to reach a level of emotional and psychological maturity to control themselves from dangerous behaviors.

The Role of Peer Pressure
    According to a study from Pleydon and Schner (2001), delinquents and non-delinquents did not vary in the amount or intensity of companionship, conflict, closeness and security with their best friend or the amount of trust they had for their peer group.  However, less communication and more perceived peer pressure did reflect at a greater degree for delinquent teenagers. 

    While the level of trust and loyalty was the same for teenagers with problems for maladaptive behaviors and those who did not, the discrimination between different peer groups could be made through peer pressure and communication.  However, Pleydon and Schner (2001) noted that it was overly simplistic to view delinquent peer group to solely cause maladaptive behavior, especially delinquency.  Delinquency was more of a product of the consummation of larger societal processes and failures.

     Nevertheless, Burton, Ray and Mehta (2003) described childhood and adolescence to be a time wherein fundamental skills for social competency to be learned.  Due to the presence of negative influences of the peers, there was a possibility that children that learn to perform inappropriate behaviors, such as steal or lie, mostly copied it from an influential peer.

    Pepler and Craig (2005) described peer context to influence concurrently with family and school during childhood and adolescence. While peer relations functioned in different ways, they were still a significant source of the sense of belongingness and connection.  This was staple to the teenagers social development.  Being a source of important emotional and social factors that were determinant in the teenagers lives, peer groups could also be the source of conflict, alienation, and victimization. 

Lack of Family Support
    According to Matharne  Thomas (2001) maladaptive behavior was greatly affected by societal factors, especially family support.  Family variables were often studied in order to grasp the etiology of such behavior.  For example, adolescents that experience a strong bond with their parents were less likely to exhibit delinquent behavior (Matharne  Thomas, 2001).  Schaffner (2006) pointed out that they were also the source of positive reinforcement, as well as the cause of negative self-perceptions.  Families provide for teenagers, especially for women, their feelings of self-worth.  When their families were dysfunctional, they were mostly likely to feel that their lives were empty (Schaffner, 2006).

    Larsen and Dehle (2007) described the direct parental impact on adolescent aggression.  Usually, children mirrored their parents behaviors.  When they were exposed to aggressive responses as young children in the home environment, they were more likely to inhibit the same aggressive responses.  Aggression and violence in the homes were noted to affect the interpersonal skills of self-regulation for negative emotions, a skill that was critical for limiting aggressive responses (Larsen  Dehle, 2007).

    Parental emotional support and adolescent aggression were also significantly correlated.  Parental support was a parental behavior that communicated acceptance and approval for the child (Larsen  Dehle, 2007).  Thus, parental behavior that did not exhibit the feelings of acceptance and approval could lead to emotional disability for the teenager, which could result in aggression.  This could be avoided when the child experiences both physical and verbal affection and encouragement, as well as open and positive communication. 

Restrictive Living Environment and Community
    Nash and Kim (2007) described social-cognitive mediators of risk.  Social information-processing mechanisms, served as memories that interpreted environmental cues that guided the behavior and assessed the impact of the response.  While biological factors served as a foundation for the individuals processing for responses, environmental factors such as harsh parenting and violent communities heavily influenced how one processed emotions and behavioral responses.

    According to studies, hostile attribution bias and response selections were based on violent environments.  Thus, an individual who grew up in such a community legitimized aggression as an acceptable reaction to problems (Nash  Kim, 2007).  Ones beliefs about the legitimacy of a certain behavior, especially for aggression, were increased by the access to aggression-oriented script or the offer of an alternative and more desirable one (Hardy  Laszloffy, 2005).  Timko, Moos and Finney (2000) validated that environmental demands that were either too high or too low could affect the individuals level of competence.  This could lead to maladaptive behavior and negative reactions to hard circumstance. 

    On the other hand, trauma could also cause an individual to react with maladaptive behaviors (Chesney-Linds, Morash, Stevens, 2008).   Trauma could also be experienced through different forms of abuse.  Moreover, it could be experienced from accidents, deaths in the families and being victims of violent crimes.

Literature Review Conclusion
    Maladaptive behaviors were considered to be serious conditions that parental and societal powers needed to address because of the significant risks that were involved for the child and for society (Ankrom, 2009).  There were significant concerns that were posed with regards to the emotional and mental stability of children that chronically engaged with maladaptive behavior. Aggression, running away and self-injury were common and grave reflections of maladaptive behavior.  Most of these behaviors manifested the sense of connection that these teenagers lacked (Shaffner, 1998).  They were also commonly reflected by a low sense of self-esteem and the lack of self-control.  Most of the time, teenagers engaged in maladaptive behavior if they felt oppressed and felt that they wanted to break free and experience liberation from whatever they were feeling that they were in bondage in. 

    Theoretical frameworks for maladaptive behaviors included theories and concepts that dealt with the inner emotional strength and well-being of the teenagers.  They were highly correlated with the most effective intervention strategies that dealt with positive reinforcements and wellness programs that provided for the teenagers what they desired connection, self-control and personal freedom.

    According to Conroy and Brown (2004), there were existing intervention policies that were ineffective in addressing maladaptive behavior.  These policies were usually geared towards punishments. Following these policies, there were calls for change for more proactive intervention programs.  Thus, the following programs that will be discussed were chosen because of these endeavors.

    Johnson and Helms (2002) described treatment programs to include cognitive-behavioral therapy.  The philosophy of this therapy was for the individual being to be exposed to their faulty way of thinking and how it had brought about emotional and behavioral disturbances. Cognitions served as major determinants for how people feel and act.  Thus, therapy helped patients to be oriented towards their cognition and behavior.  It stressed about proper process of thinking, decision-making and doing things (Johnson  Helms, 2002).

    Programs for intervention also needed to have multilevels of positive behavior support (Scott et al., 2003).  In order to address maladaptive behavior, there needed to be positive behaviors that would serve as replacement behaviors, which served the same functions that these destructive behavior provided for the patients.  There were two defining characteristics for such behavior, it suggested a goal for the students to develop a repertoire of positive skills that would allow them active participation in family, school and the community (Scott et al., 2003). Furthermore, this approach also elicited the support efforts from the family, the community and from mental healthcare professionals, in order to usher in the positive behavioral change.

    The Virginia Commission on Youth (2003) described promising treatment, especially geared to addressed SI behaviors through cognitive behavioral therapy and behavior modification.  The latter described the use of psychodynamic therapy in order to identify areas for the lack of attachment.  The addictions model was also offered to help the teenager develop a sense of control over ones life.

    Similarly, Kadish, Glaser, Calhoun and Ginter (2001) described how the successful provision of proper perspectives could help teenagers reassess their lives and the behaviors they were exhibiting.  This focused on training them to develop positive life skills in the areas of interpersonal communication, problem-solving, physical fitness and health maintenance and identity development (Kadish et al., 2001).

    Caldwell and Smith (2008) highlighted the importance of leisure as a part of human development in order to prevent risky behavior, such as maladaptive behavior.  There was a need to replace these behaviors with something positive, yet equally fulfilling for them.  Through the awareness of leisure activities, they could be able to make healthy decisions when they experience psychological crises (Caldwell  Smith, 2008).

    There were also specific programs that could address the needs of girls.  One of which were programs that reinforced the behaviors that they needed to reduce or eliminate.  These programs usually focused on gender issues.  A wellness paradigm was attributed for females (Hartwig  Myers, 2003).   A wellness program was viewed to be more effective than correctional programs because such programs encouraged functional and practical life behaviors that addressed the intellectual, spiritual and physical areas of the person.

Treatment programs for girls needed to highlight the following
The four themes highlighted in these chapters addressing the treatment of girls aggression include (a) the need for a developmental contextual perspective in understanding girls aggression, (b) the significance and salience of relationships for assessing girls aggression, (c) designing treatment to target the risky social contexts that may facilitate the development of aggression in girls, and (d) identifying relevant outcomes in the treatment of girls aggression  (Craig, 2005, p. 217).

    The existing intervention programs discussed, which currently provides remedies to the problem of maladaptive behaviors.  The next chapter will discuss about the research methodology and the research design for this qualitative phenomenological study.  Chapter 3 will present the sample and the population.  It will describe the different instruments that will be used for data collection and data analysis, as well as the issues of validity and reliability.