HOW SOCIAL CLIMBERS TAKE RISKS TO BE POPULAR 163576019558000 A Research Proposal Presented to the Faculty of English Language Department AGUSAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL Butuan City In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Subject G-X Research By JOLINE MONIQUE ASILO ALTHEA PAALA MERCEDES BUHI-AN WINOMA JANE RIVERA JANUARY 2018 Dedication The researchers would like to dedicate this research to all the people who are affected by this social issue

HOW SOCIAL CLIMBERS TAKE RISKS TO BE POPULAR
163576019558000

A Research Proposal Presented to the Faculty
of English Language Department
AGUSAN NATIONAL HIGH SCHOOL
Butuan City
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
of the Subject G-X Research
By
JOLINE MONIQUE ASILO
ALTHEA PAALA
MERCEDES BUHI-AN
WINOMA JANE RIVERA
JANUARY 2018
Dedication
The researchers would like to dedicate this research to all the people who are affected by this social issue, especially to those of Butuan City. They would also like to extend this to all the types of people being stereotyped and got obsessed over something so trivial. They would not have conducted this research without you.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The researchers would like to extend their heartfelt gratitude to the following:
To the Almighty God, who guided them in pursuing this research and for giving them good health and wisdom.

To their teacher, Mrs. Stela N. Felias who has been there providing her heartfelt support and guidance at all times and has given them invaluable guidance, inspiration and suggestions in their quest for knowledge. She has given them all the freedom to pursue their research, while silently and non-obtrusively ensuring that they stay on course and do not deviate from the core of their research. Without her able guidance, this study would not have been possible and they shall eternally be grateful to her for her assistance.
To their parents, Mrs. Rotila C. Asilo and Mr. Marvin D. Asilo, Mrs. Raquel C. Paala and Mr. Ramon G. Paala, Mrs. Imelda B. Buhi-an and Mr. Rizaldo L. Buhi-an; and Mrs. Revelina S. Rivera and Mr. Joselito T. Rivera for providing them with continual support on their studies that led them to this research.

To their friends, John Bert Gorgoya, Daevon Rosal, Jewel Marie C. Asilo, Joshua Batac and Jennifer T. Mendoza for providing extra cooperation and additional information.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE……………………………………………………….. iDEDICATION………………………………..…………….. iiACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………….. iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS………………..………………… ivCHAPTER 1 THE PROBLEM AND SCOPE
Introduction…………………………………
Review of Related Literature and Studies…
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework…………

Statement of the Problem……………………
Significance of the Study……………………
Scope and Limitation of the Study
Definition of Terms………………………….

CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHOLOGY

Research Design
Research Locate
The Respondents/Sampling………………..

Research Instrument
Data Gathering Procedure………………….

Statistical Statement…………………………

CHAPTER 3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Reference………………………………….

Appendices…………………………………

Documentation…………………………….

Curriculum Vitae…………………………..

CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this study is to investigate the possible reasons about this social phenomenon that has taken a toll on the majority of teens. The deep desire of being known by many has been happening since the early years and it still exists in every community. Not only does it occur in one’s mind, some make popularity a priority and will do anything to be on top. People witness this almost every day and it makes some of them question “What is so good about being famous?” And so, this study is aiming to answer every possible question anyone can muster on how social climbers take risks to be popular.
Human beings crave attention and seek it out of the world. Many have this mindset that popularity will make them happy, or so it seems. That’s because whenever we see someone famous, they are being continually showered by love and praise. And who doesn’t want that? As might be expected, some people obsess over this and behave unfittingly. They are labeled as “attention whores” or “attention seekers”. Nobody genuinely likes them but everyone is drawn to them. In fact, you can find these people everywhere. And it has even taken over the internet, you can find them on facebook, twitter, instagram or on any social media. Not only that but it can be someone you know or close with, it can be your fake friend, best friend, brother or sister. In short, anyone can be a social climber.

This study will be conducted at Agusan National High School on selected students, S.Y. 2017-2018. The researchers propagate this study in ANHS because of the large number of students present and the awareness they will gain about the dirty things social climbers will do. It also distinguishes the student’s opinions and remarks on how important and relevant it is to be able to recognize a vile and tedious social climber.

Review of Related Literature and Studies
Power and status hierarchies are ubiquitous in human society. Although a significant amount of evidence suggests that people seek power and status, there is a general emphasis in the extant literature on hierarchy acceptance and reinforcement. (Alain de Botton, 2011)
There are few more distressing or pejorative tags to be labeled with than that of “social climber”.

In an age when people are ready to admit to an extraordinary variety of misdemeanors, it would remain genuinely shocking to confess to a strong interest in meeting rich, famous and powerful people – as well as in fending off the appeals of lesser acquaintances whose careers have not developed as they might have done.

You can be sure there’s a problem of honesty when society spends its time brutally condemning a behavior which most of its members seem to be quite interested in, so it’s perhaps time to take a frank look at the phenomenon of social climbing – and see what exactly is wrong with it, and if there are any times when it might be okay. (Alain de Botton, 2011)
Part of the reason the label is so shocking is that it fails to make any distinction between varieties of social aspiration, some less vicious than others.

Putting them all in the same boat, it implausibly forces everyone sensible to deny any interest in the whole topic. And yet social climbing, like anger or envy, has its good and bad versions, and like these other so-called sins, is an inherent part of a make-up that would be wise to understand and to nuance – rather than deny and attempt to stamp out in shame.
Social climbing also becomes a little less absurd if one acknowledges how much of it is really a strategy for survival.

A great many people’s interest in going to parties and having a conversation with the powerful is not idle pleasure-seeking, but an attempt to keep oneself in line for work, based on the true supposition that bosses often look more benevolently on those they have met socially.

To make a bee-line for a plutocrat may hence be no less serious, and no less worthy of respect and dignity, than a boar hunt on whose successful conclusion the fate of an entire primitive community might once have hung.

Parties carry mortgages and food bills on their backs. We may not be taught to associate corporate events with heroism. They involve battles fought with the most bathetic of instruments, with bad jokes and remarks about the quality of the canapés, but they are battles nonetheless, comparable in their intensity and demands to the tracking of furtive animals through the deadly forests of the prehistoric world. (Alain de Botton, 2011)
It’s impossible to be a social creature, to be part of society, and not feel miserably ripped apart by envy quite a lot of the time. Of course, few emotions are as taboo for humans as envy.

Then again, as social creatures should be careful to deny themselves the chance to feel envy fairly regularly. To refuse to feel envy is also to refuse any chance of growth or development, for envious feelings are in truth important guides to what they should aim for in life.

To shut yourself off from all envious feelings is also to shut yourself off from what you actually want, and might one day have – if you can bear to look frankly at what is still missing.

It is only right, indeed healthy, for anyone starting out in business or sport or cookery or art to envy more successful people – to pour over their success and feel crushed by a sense of inadequacy by comparison. How else could one ever have the energy to achieve?
The most envious people are often consciously unaware of their envy, and their inadequacies infect their judgments on everything. The person envious of another’s love life will start to make abstract speeches about how romantic love is an illusion. (Alain de Botton, 2011)
What really marks out corrupt as opposed to forgivable social climbers is the former’s strong belief that the rich, powerful and famous are at heart better than other people. They don’t merely accept that these types are lucky or gifted in a particular area, they sincerely hold that they are finer human beings. This is the route to true snobbery as well as to a vicious neglect of anyone who cannot display the necessary badges of success.

There are better and worse people at large in the world, but it is naive and cruel to assume that they could be so conveniently located on the basis of how much money they have or what work they do.

It is this the snob refuses to believe, trusting instead in the existence of water-tight elites whose members unfailingly win out over the rest of us – electricians, nursery teachers or writers whose names one has never heard of. (Alain de Botton, 2011)
To dream of stepping into the fancy-chancy world is one crass attitude if you do not really belong to that crowd, and to push yourself to something that does not fit and suit you is nothing but pure stupidity. That is harsh, right? (Warner Carter, 2011)
But that is reality. This world is divided into classes, ranks, sub-classes and sub-divisions.

Rich and poor, blue collars and white collars, erudite and illiterate, famous and mediocre. Hollywood celebrities mingle only with fellow celebrities, rock stars date only models, and models linger only with their wealthy executive managers, whereas ordinary people satisfy themselves with watching these upper class people on TV as if they are humans created from the genes of the higher order-unreachable, untouchable.
Looking back, dreaming of being with rock and pop stars, celebrities and famous erudite icons was nothing but a pure act of silly dreaming, and forcing yourself to their world was one utter display of social climbing. Yet today, these acts are now irrevocable part of life. Everyone uses Facebook, almost half of the population has Twitter and Google+, some have blogs and personal websites, and most are dependent on the Internet. And this solidifies the truth that silly dreaming and social climbing these days aren’t bad at all.  (Warner Carter, 2011)
Nobel Laureate economist, John Harsanyi, 2001, said that “apart from economic payoffs, social status seems to be the most important incentive and motivating force of social behavior.” The more noticeable status disparities are, the more concerned with status people become, and the differences between the haves and have-nots have been extremely pronounced during the economic recession of recent years.  Barack Obama campaigned directly on the issue of the “dwindling middle class” during his 2008 presidential run and appointed vice-president Joe Biden to lead a middle class task force specifically to bolster this demographic.  Despite some recent economic improvement, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont just two months ago cautioned that “the reality is that the middle class today in this country is in desperate shape and the gap between the very wealthy and everyone else is going to grow wider.”  Concerns about status likely will not be leaving the public consciousness any time.  
Of course, status differences are not simply relevant to economic standing, but they appear to be on our minds at all times.  As renowned neuroscientist, Michael Gazzaniga, 2000, has noted, “When you get up in the morning, you do not think about triangles and squares and these similes that psychologists have been using for the past 100 years.  You think about status. You think about where you are in relation to your peers.”  Between CEO and employee, quarterback and wide receiver, husband and wife, status looms large.  Recent work by social scientists has tackled the topic, elucidating behavioral differences between low-status and high-status individuals, and the methods by which those at the bottom of the totem pole are most successful at climbing to the top.

Psychologist PJ Henry at DePaul University, 2006, recently published an article demonstrating that low-status individuals have higher tendencies toward violent behavior, explaining these differences in terms of low-status compensation theory.  Henry began this work by observing that murder rates were higher in regions with landscapes conducive to herding compared to regions that are conducive to farming, consistent with prior research showing an association between herding-based economies and violence. The traditional explanation for this pattern, popularized by psychologists Dov Cohen and Richard Nisbett, is that herding cultures have a propensity for maintaining a Culture of Honor. The story goes that because herders from Southern Britain originally settled in the Southern United States (and also established a herding economy on the new land), this left them in an economically precarious position. The possessions of these herdsmen—the most important of which was their livestock—was susceptible to theft, forcing individuals to develop a quick trigger in response to threats, economic or otherwise.  In comparison, the farming economy of the North was far more secure, requiring a less aggressive and protective stance toward one’s personal resources.
Henry took on the traditional Culture of Honor hypothesis to suggest instead that differences between herding and farming cultures in violence actually stem from differences in status.  His theory is based on a considerable psychological literature demonstrating that individuals from low-status groups (e.g. ethnic minorities) tend to engage in more vigilant psychological self-protection than those from high-status groups.  Low-status people are much more sensitive to being socially rejected and are more inclined to monitor their environment for threats.  Because of this vigilance toward protecting their sense of self-worth, low-status individuals are quicker to respond violently to personal threats and insults.

To provide evidence that tendencies for psychological self-protection were the crucial critical link between status and violence, Henry assessed survey data from over 1,500 Americans.  In this nationally representative sample, low-socioeconomic status (low-SES) individuals reported far more psychological defensiveness in terms of considering themselves more likely to be taken advantage of and trusting people less. 
Finally, in an experiment with both high- and low-SES college students, Henry demonstrated that boosting people’s sense of self-worth diminished aggressive tendencies amongst low-status individuals. Henry asked some students in the experiment to write about a time when they felt important and valuable.  Other students did not receive this assignment, but instead completed a rote task about defining nouns.  In a second portion of the experiment, all participants answered questions about how willing they would be to respond aggressively to threats. Consistent with the general population studies, college students from low-SES backgrounds expressed more willingness to respond aggressively to insults, but this tendency diminished markedly for those who first wrote about themselves as important and valuable.
Although this pattern of low-status compensation is important on its own, it is also unfortunate given a separate body of research on how people actually attain higher status.  This research, recently summarized in an article by psychologists, Cameron Anderson and Gavin J Kilduff, 1986, shows that those who are effective in attaining status do so through behaving generously and helpfully to bolster their value to their group.  In other words, low-status individuals’ aggressive and violent behavior is precisely the opposite of what they should be doing to ascend the societal totem pole. 
Anderson and Kilduff, 1986, demonstrated in one study that people in a group math problem-solving task who merely signaled their competence through being more vocal attained higher status and were able to do so regardless of their actual competence on the task.  Research by psychologists Charlie L. Hardy and Mark Van Vugt, and sociologist Robb Willer have shown that generosity is the key to status.  People afford greater status to individuals who donate more of their own money to a communal fund and those who sacrifice their individual interests for the public good.  Demonstrating your value to a group—whether through competence or selflessness—appears to improve status. Anderson and Aiwa Shirako suggest that the amplifier for this effect is the degree to which one has social connections with others.  Their studies involved MBA (Master of Business Administration) students engaging in a variety of negotiations tasks.  They showed that individuals who behaved cooperatively attained a more positive reputation, but only if they were socially embedded in the group.  Those who behaved cooperatively, but lacked connections went unnoticed.  Social connectedness had similar effects for uncooperative MBA students.  Those who were selfish and well-connected saw their reputation diminish.

The sum of these findings can begin to explain the troubled circumstances of those lowest in status.  Ongoing efforts to maintain a positive view of oneself despite economic and social hardships can engage psychological defense mechanisms that are ultimately self-defeating.  Instead of ingratiating themselves to those around them – this is the successful strategy for status attainment – low-status individuals may be more prone to bullying and hostile behavior, especially when provoked.  Research identifying factors that lead to successful status-seeking provides some optimism, though.  Individuals capable of signaling their worth to others rather than being preoccupied with signaling their worth to themselves may be able to break the self-defeating cycle of low-status behavior. (Anderson and Kilduff, 1986)
As with so many Yogi-isms, this once contains more than a grain of truth.  Likability, Mitch Prinstein, 1989, acknowledges, is a form of popularity conducive to the establishment of satisfying relationships, personal and professional fulfillment, good health, and longevity.  He argues, however, that popularity grounded in status, a measurement of visibility, influence and power, can be harmful—to those who seek and attain it and to society.

In Popular, Prinstein (a professor of psychology and neuroscience and the director of clinical psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) examines the nature, significance, and impact of both types of popularity; their roots in a part of the brain that matures in adolescence; and the role of celebrity and social media in the increasing influence of status in twenty-first century America.  Drawing on the latest empirical studies, his book is an accessible and informative primer on popularity for parents (and, for that matter, anyone interested in the desires that drive behavior).

Citing a comprehensive study conducted by Joe Allen and his colleagues at the University of Virginia, Prinstein indicates that “cool” (and therefore popular) kids in high school – the first to get involved romantically and show signs of minor deviancy – tended to do less well than their former “low status” peers when they hit their twenties.  They were, in fact, far more likely to abuse alcohol and marijuana; and less likely to have satisfying romantic relationships or friendships.  Other longitudinal studies of adults, Prinstein reports, reveal that the pursuit of extrinsic goals (the trappings of popularity:  fame, power, wealth, and beauty) often leads to discontent, anxiety and depression.

Prinstein, 1999, reminds us as well that social media “likes” offer adolescents (who tend to base self-esteem on how others view them) the rush that accompanies being noticed, approved, and admired by their peers.  In an experiment conducted by Prinstein, adolescents became far more likely to drink alcohol, smoke pot, or have unprotected sex (or, at least, say they would) if their popular peers indicated they were doing these things.  Such “reflected appraisal,” Prinstein emphasizes, often continues into adulthood.  As do other damaging interpretations of social cues, including “rejection sensitivity” bias (a tendency to expect rejection, react emotionally, and create a cycle of lifelong unpopularity); and “hostile attribution bias” (a tendency to see slights as intentional that sometimes results in workplace aggression).

Prinstein concludes with recommendations for parents who want to enhance the likeability of their children and preempt (or restrain) an obsession with popularity based on status.  A warm and affectionate social environment, in which parents spend time with and respect their children, he indicates, has a positive and enduring impact.  “Scaffolding” the relationship, providing as much support as children need, but no more, may well produce independence, self-confidence, and respect for and trust in others.  While noting that when kids enter middle school, parental intervention may seem intrusive and even damaging to relationship-building, Prinstein maintains that discussions about peers can be helpful at any time.

These suggestions, many of which will be familiar to Professor Prinstein’s readers, are certainly useful.  But, when measured against the biological and cultural forces supporting status-based popularity, they do not seem all that potent.  They do not give us sufficient ammunition to refute the proposition that in the years to come, to paraphrase Anaïs Nin, an increasing percentage of us will not see things as they are, but as we are.  Because the next generation—and the next—will continue to look at the world through the wrong kind of “popularity-colored” glasses.Everyone has some degree of experience with social hierarchy. Organizations from Fortune 500 corporations to small nonprofit community groups use formal hierarchies to allocate decision authority and clarify roles. Consumers purchase expensive clothing, cars, and other goods to signal their standing in society’s status hierarchy. Colleagues engage in verbal sparring matches to assert their dominance and competence, and to show others who really is the smartest person in the room. Indeed, social hierarchy is ubiquitous in humans and other species (de Waal, 1982; Fiske, 1992; Fiske, 2010; Sapolsky, 2005). Its prevalence across species, cultures, and time is a testament to the adaptive value of hierarchy, allowing people to coordinate their efforts and motivating group members to work on behalf of the group in hopes of securing a powerful or prestigious role (Magee ; Galinsky, 2008). Not surprisingly, people are somewhat predisposed to hierarchy, tending to become dominant in the presence of submissiveness, and submissive in the presence of dominance (Gruenfeld ; Tiedens, 2010; Tiedens ; Fragale, 2003; Tiedens, Unzueta, ; Young, 2007).

The prevalence of social hierarchy has not gone unnoticed by scholars in the social sciences. Two forms of hierarchy have been a particular focus for social scientists. One form, power, is defined as control over valuable resources, which also affords control over others by providing or withholding those resources (French ; Raven, 1959; Keltner, Gruenfeld, ; Anderson, 2003). The second form, social status, is defined as the respect, prestige, and admiration one has in the eyes of others (Magee ; Galinsky, 2008). As of May 15, 2012, ISI Web of Science includes over 2,000 works related to power or status hierarchies in the Social Sciences Citation Index, with 1,250 of those citations occurring in the last 10 years.

As suggested by the sheer number of citations, the findings of research on power and status hierarchies could fill an encyclopedia. At a very high level, people tend to have upward ambitions, striving to increase their power and status (Barkow, 1975; Hogan ; Hogan, 1991; McClelland, 1975; Rotter, 1966). When people feel powerful, they have a sense of control and become more approach oriented, meaning they focus on rewards in their environment (Keltner, et al., 2003). This frees people to take action (Galinsky, Gruenfeld, ; Magee, 2003), take risks (Anderson ; Galinsky, 2006), speak their minds and display their true emotions (Anderson ; Berdahl, 2002; Berdahl ; Martorana, 2006), and focus on the instrumental value of others (Gruenfeld, Inesi, Magee, ; Galinsky, 2008), among a long list of other outcomes. Status is somewhat more negotiable than power because it is conferred by peers based on their perceptions (Berger, Rosenholtz, ; Zelditch, 1980; Blau, 1964). People who display signs of dominance tend to attain the highest status in groups (Anderson, John, Keltner, ; Kring, 2001; Anderson ; Kilduff, 2009b), as do people who demonstrate their generosity and willingness to serve the group (Hardy ; Van Vugt, 2006; Willer, 2009). Although status is intangible, people are remarkably adept at figuring out where they and others fall in the hierarchy, and they behave in ways consistent with their relative status (Anderson, Srivastava, Beer, Spataro, ; Chatman, 2006; Henrich ; Gil2White, 2001). Once people have established their position in the status hierarchy, the thought of a status loss is quite aversive (Pettit, Yong, ; Spataro, 2010; Scheepers, Ellemers, ; Sintemaartensdijk, 2009).

Although much is known about social hierarchies, much remains to be discovered and refined. In particular, three gaps in extant literature on power and status hierarchies are relevant to this dissertation. First, there is an emphasis on hierarchy stability and stabilizing forces in the literature. This is not an illogical focus because empirical evidence indicates that hierarchies are often (but not always) stable (Anderson, et al., 2001; Aries, 1996; Magee ; Galinsky, 2008). However, given that people are motivated to seek power and status (Barkow, 1975; Hogan ; Hogan, 1991; Huberman, Loch, ; Onculer, 2004; McClelland, 1975), and hierarchies are often the product of negotiation and conflict processes (Bendersky ; Hays, 2012b; Owens ; Sutton, 2001), it is important that hierarchy researchers understand not only the reasons for stability but the conditions under which hierarchies may be destabilized and the processes individuals use to do so.

Second, most research defines hierarchy as a rank ordering of individuals (Berger, et al., 1980; Magee ; Galinsky, 2008). This implies that a hierarchy is simply present by virtue of inequality along some dimension. As a result, the focus of research has been on how the rank ordering is determined (e.g., Anderson, et al., 2001; Anderson ; Kilduff, 2009b; Ridgeway, Boyle, Kuipers, ; Robinson, 1998; Ridgeway ; Diekema, 1989) and on the experience of having power or status, either high or low (e.g., Galinsky, et al., 2003; Pettit ; Sivanathan, 2012). However, it is also important that we understand how hierarchies vary in their structural properties, and the effects of this variance. For example, research on status indicates that status can be construed as a continuum rather than a rank ordering, analogous to the difference between interval and ordinal variables. People are not only sensitive to their ranking in the hierarchy, they are also aware of distances between self and others, and take actions to manage these distances in ways that are advantageous for themselves (Bottero ; Prandy, 2003; Phillips, Rothbard, ; Dumas, 2009). This suggests that hierarchies are not just present or absent, they also vary in their dispersion, from relatively compressed to relatively dispersed. Understanding how structural properties of the hierarchy, such as dispersion, affect group member behavior represents an important topic to address in research.

Third, although power and status have distinct theoretical definitions, they are often correlated and many scholars use the terms interchangeably (e.g., Hall, Coats, ; LeBeau, 2005), or investigate one or the other without articulating the role of both power and status in determining behavior. Scholars have only recently begun to examine whether people distinguish between these constructs, and what happens when people have either power or status, but not both. For example, people perceive powerful others as dominant and cold but see powerless others as warm and submissive. However, if people are seen as high status, they are perceived as dominant and warm regardless of their power (Fragale, Overbeck, ; Neale, 2011). Furthermore, when people have power without status, they tend to denigrate their subordinate counterparts (Fast, Halevy, ; Galinsky, 2012). Additional research is needed to identify how people differentially view and seek power versus status.

Although prior research indicates that having power increases individuals’ sense of independence and decreases conformity to social norms, we argue that the effect of power depends on its legitimacy, meaning the extent to which the power structure is perceived as appropriate and fair. (Fast, Halevy, & Galinsky, 2012)
Much like the need for control, status is widely desired and sought after, prompting many scholars to label the quest for status as a human universal (Barkow, 1975; Hogan & Hogan, 1991). That status would be desired is not surprising because of its positive effects on self2esteem and physical well2being (Adler, et al., 2000; Barkow, 1975; De Cremer & Tyler, 2005; Hogan & Hogan, 1991; Leary, et al., 2001). In the context of task groups, those with the highest status are given the most opportunities to contribute and their contributions are evaluated more positively than lower status group members (Berger, et al., 1980; Sherif, et al., 1955). Moreover, people with status have greater behavioral latitude in the context of the group. High status group members are permitted to deviate from group norms and attitudes with less risk of negative social consequences (Hollander, 1958; Levine & Moreland, 1994). Recent research suggests that status can also offset unfavorable social judgments of those with power. Although powerful individuals are generally seen as dominant but cold and powerless individuals are seen as warm but submissive, people with high status are seen as dominant and warm regardless of their power (Fragale, et al., 2011).

At work, in the community, at the store, and in daily interactions with others, social hierarchies guide our decisions and actions. In some cases, we defer to or follow someone with higher power or status. In other cases, we take the lead and subordinates follow. And in still other situations, we engage in contests with others whom we believe are our subordinates but who do not necessarily see the hierarchy in the same way. (Barkow, 1956)
When people believe they can successfully negotiate higher power or status for themselves with minimal risk of negative consequences, they may choose to challenge and seek to modify the hierarchy rather than defend and reinforce it. To the extent that a hierarchy is perceived as illegitimate, people may feel that there is minimal downside risk to non2conformity and status challenges. Thus, status oriented behavior may resemble expected value or risk calculations, accounting for the relative value of the “prize” and the probability of obtaining that prize. When value and probability are high enough, challenges ensue. (Barkow, 1956)
Aside from a need for more attention to hierarchy modification and destabilization efforts, these projects suggest that the relative stability of many hierarchies may belie significant, ongoing hierarchy maintenance processes. Although not always stated explicitly, many scholars use stability as evidence that people tend to accept and reinforce hierarchies. While that may be true in some cases, this dissertation indicates that there are often attempts to modify the hierarchy. Through this lens, stability may instead reflect that challenges and modification efforts are often unsuccessful because those with privileged positions in the hierarchy enjoy an advantage in negotiations over power and status. (Barkow, 1956)
According to Yue Meng and Nile Stanley, 2018. social networking sites are online websites that provide user-friendly platforms for individuals to connect with others and express themselves. Users of social networking sites are able to share ideas, activities, events, and interests within their individual networks. Facebook, Sophia, and Renren are examples of these free learning communities.
How do you cope as a “rich man in the Philippines”? Yes, like it or not, that’s what you are here. That’s how the locals see you and regardless of what you say or feel, they will always see you that way, and you will encounter the ugly side of social climbing.
Here in the Philippines, everyone knows their place in the social ladder when compared to others, and they all know how to relate to others on the different levels. (Jeff Harvie, 2017)
It must come with that other Filipino favorite pastime of gossiping — social climbing. After all, isn’t who’s wearing what and who’s wearing not, who is sucking up or sucking face the very essence of social climbing? The very fodder for gossip. Knowledge of these details and who is coming and who is going are your key to entering the social climbing circles and guaranteeing your place in it. (Ana Santos, 2013)
In the Philippines, lots of people who use social media find social life as a priority and climb their way on top, no matter what. Lying is a way of climbing the ladder. Pretending to be someone you’re not so you can gain the attention of many and be adored is something a social climber would do. (Macky, 2000)
Lots of Filipinos love to gossip, especially if it’s about other people. This is what Filipino social climbers love. Even if it’s negative, as long you’re giving them attention, they are satisfied with what they have come to. Even with no regrets after doing something so daring. Filipinos just love attention in all its forms. (Macky, 2000)
Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
3070860201930- Desire for attention, approval or praise – Insecurity, wanting to fit in- Overly concerned with people’s perception
00- Desire for attention, approval or praise – Insecurity, wanting to fit in- Overly concerned with people’s perception
127635201930Taking risks or challenges to become famous.00Taking risks or challenges to become famous.

24174459906000
241681017843500
241681030035500
This conceptual/theoretical framework represents desire for attention, approval or praise, insecurity, wanting to fit in and overly concerned with people’s perception as the dependent variable and “Taking risks or challenges to become famous.” as the independent variable.
The dependent variables have been linked to the independent variable. Whether the person is feeling too much of the emotions mentioned, they are capable of being well known just by doing things that attract the attention of others.
The researches have come to the conclusion that the stated information is true based on research and interviews.
Statement of the Problem
The present study investigates these problem statements that understand the respondents and especially the study entitled “A Perspective on How Social Climbers Take Risks to be Famous”.

The researches have concluded that lots of people here in Butuan City struggle with this social issue. Some have questioned as to why people take time to prioritize on being well-known and how they do it. With these questions, the researchers will most likely find the answers.

1.) Is popularity an asset?
2.) Have you ever felt envious of the people who are well known around
your area?
3.) Do you think that being popular will make you happy and satisfied?
comfort zone a step to take?
5.) Do you think that being on top will make your life, career, health and
relationships with friends and family better?
6.) Does being popular affect your perspective in life?
7.) Do you think that climbing the social ladder requires mental and
emotional stability?
8.) Do you think that the majority of the human race thrives to be famous
in our current generation?
9.) Do you think that the thirst for fame will cease to exist?
10.) Do you think that ‘attention-seekers’ lie and do mischievous things?
With the guide question, how do social climbers take risks to be popular?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is to determine how social climbers take risks to be popular and to gather some information to why they feel the need or desire to gain the attention of many using such methods, mainly focused on the residence of Butuan City. There are many causes and effects of trying to achieve high social status in a civilized area due to various reasons, thus making a great impact on the social and livelihood on the citizens living in Butuan.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
This study focused on How Social Climbers Take Risks to be Popular of selected citizens of Butuan City during the Fourth Grading Period of Academic Year 2017 – 2018.The respondents of the study were composed of twenty one randomly selected citizens of Butuan. The results of this study are applicable only to the respondents of this study.
The researchers considered working on this study to find out what people think of social climbers, attention seekers and neutral social beings. The reasons as to why this social phenomenon exists, not only in the City of Butuan but also in the other parts of the world. The possible actions regarding this matter as to what they do to gain the attention of many.

Definition of Terms
Attention. Notice taken of someone or something; the regarding of someone or
something as interesting or important.

Hierarchies. A system or organization in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status or authority.Perspective. A particular attitude toward or way of regarding something; a point of view.Popularity. The state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by many people.

Risk. A situation involving exposure to danger.Social. Relating to rank and status in society.Social Climber. A person who is eager to gain a higher social status.Status. The relative social, professional, or other standing of someone or something.CHAPTER 2
Research Design
The researchers employed the survey design. This design defines as a brief interview or discussion with an individual about a specific topic. The dependent variable in this study is based on the answers given by the respondents and the independent variable is the possible outcome of becoming a social climber and taking risks. By using this design, the researchers were able to determine how social climbers take risks to become popular. The researchers conducted a survey on the dependent variable, which is the research instrument used for the survey, which was used as a basis of information and conclusion for this study. The independent variable which is taking risks or challenges to become famous is expected to have an effect on the dependent variable. This design determines the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable through providing information from the respondents. This means that each respondent encounters the study’s methods for conducting this research.

Research Locale
The researchers reside in the City of Butuan and have gathered enough information regarding this matter. It is the perfect opportunity to let others know about this and so, they conducted this research, only to collect data from respondents within this city.
With the data they collected about how social climbers take risks to become popular, it has the common causes and effects with the other places in the world regarding what was discussed in the review related literature which means that the methods used for social climbing is no different from the social climbers of Butuan and from other countries.
Butuan City is indeed a city of people filled with unique personalities. Some of these people are well known while some of them are either average or below average as social class beings. Social climbers do exist in this city and have done things in the past that made them known for what they did as of now. These things or methods include discrimination against something or someone, spreading scandals, posting nudes, lying or pretending, and following new trends or sometimes making new trends. These examples are all gathered from the information provided by the respondents living in Butuan City.

The Respondents/Sampling
The study was carried out in Butuan City. Most respondents were between the ages of 14 – 18 and few were ages up. Names were given to the researches with the respondents’ permission to present on the study.

List of respondents included:
Alec Caseria
Angelo Carmona
Carl Gio B. MahinayCarlos DimlaCharlene DelpusoClint A. SusarnoFerdilyn J. OrbitaHersh Jeon II
Hannah Jane Busa10.Honey SerohijosJan Stephanie Y. NolloraJessa Rose B. ObedenciaJewel Marie C. Asilo
Juliet T. DemataJulie Mae BustiiloJurissa Mae C. Asilo
Kizzle Claire T. CastlloKrystyll Marie B. CostanMherry Grace Ares
Michael Edria B. MaurYannah GucorZenneth May Morgado
Research Instrument
The researchers designed a questionnaire as one of the data collection instrument for this study. They have produced ten questions and one guide question for the respondents to answer. The questions (see Appendix VI) were aimed at eliciting relevant information concerning social driven people or social climbers mainly in Butuan City. Questions relating to reasons and possible strategies were asked during the interview. A guide question designed by the researchers was also used in the study.

This was done in order to see:
• how the subject will react to the questionnaire;
• whether the subject’s opinion differs with the other respondents;
• what information the subjects can provide for the researchers; or
•if they can give the information needed; as well as
• to determine if the selected topic for this study is relevant.

Data Gathering Procedure
The researchers made a letter for the approval to conduct the study at Mercy Community Hospital through S. Julpha E. Meron, RSM, BSN, MHA. The study was then conducted for two weeks with 30 preschool subjects as for their preference on white or colored uniforms. One of the two (2) student nurses wore a white uniform while the other wore a colored uniform. Each student nurse interviewed, observed the child’s behavior and assessed each subject from head to neck.
After collecting all data the researchers, with the help of the statistician tabulated and tallied the survey. The result would hopefully be the basis for enhanced Nurse-Patient relationship
Statistical Statement