REDEFINING THE BUYING ROLES IN HOUSEHOLD SECTOR 6.1...

232

CHAPTER – VI

REDEFINING THE BUYING ROLES IN HOUSEHOLD SECTOR

6.1 Introduction

Today, major changes in the life style and role structure of the contemporary household

reveals a need to re-define the internal dynamics of household decision making. Traditionally,

women were seen to be the purchasing agents for the household; nonetheless, increasing

participation of women in the work force has prompted a shift in their role as children have also now

started playing the role of “buyers” for the entire household. Even in those households, where

women do not work, children are observed to share this role with their mothers. Children enjoy

greater discretion not only in making routine consumption decisions for the household but also in

pestering their parents to buy other products desired by them. So the present chapter considered the

purchase implications of changes in household composition.

The fourth objective of the study is to identify the shift in household buying structure and to

achieve this objective factor combination from the scale i.e., Fa9, Fa10, Fa11, Fb3, Fb5 and Fb6 has

been considered. Majority of the parents agree that the shift in the roles of buying decisions in

household sector is due to increase of women in work force, this increases the family income and so

the mother and the children are able to finance some of the purchase decisions rejected by the father.

Parents also agree that cultural shift has also brought changes in the decision making process of the

household. However, with the changes in structure of the household from joint family system to

nuclear system there is a change in the role of consumer from the elder member of the family

“Karta” to the youngest member of family the “Kids” in making decisions. Majority of the children

agree that their family is nuclear family and every family member has his/her ideas relating to the

products to be purchased and they being an important member are given full right to initiate and

233

influence and also to decide regarding the purchase decisions and they give their consent in buying

even the costly products for the family.

6.2 Analysis and Interpretation of the Survey Results

6.2.1 Cultural Shift has Brought Changes in the Decision Making Process

There is an increase in the westernization of Indian culture and this cultural shift has brought

changes in the decision making process in the household sector.

Table 6.1

Cultural Shift has Brought Changes in the Decision Making Process:

All Parent Respondents

Group/Sub group WAS CV SDA DA I A SA Total

Bathinda 0.59 23.68 5

(2.00) 28

(11.20) 48

(19.20) 152

(60.80) 17

(6.80) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.62 22.93 2

(0.80) 29

(11.60) 53

(21.20) 144

(57.60) 22

(8.80) 250

(100)

Total 0.61 23.27 7

(1.40) 57

(11.40) 101

(20.20) 296

(59.20) 39

(7.80) 500

(100)

chi^2 = 2.41 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 0.372 (df : 498) Note: Figure in parentheses indicate percentages

Overall WAS 0.61 signifying the statement that majority (67 percent) respondents agree to

the statement. WAS above 0.59 for Bathinda respondents and 0.62 for Ludhiana respondents show

that 67.60 percent respondents from Bathinda and 66.40 percent respondent from Ludhiana agree to

the statement. However, co-efficient of variation shows more consistency in the responses of

Ludhiana respondents as value of CV is 22.93 percent as compared to Bathinda respondents who

have 23.68 percent variation in their responses. Although WAS is significant in both the cities but

insignificant value of chi-square and t-test in Table 6.1 concludes that there is a negative association

between the respondents of Ludhiana and Bathinda.

234

Table 6.2


Age Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 35 0.80 17.11 5

(33.33) 8

(53.33) 2

(13.33) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.70 20.81 1

(1.14) 7

(7.95) 16

(18.18) 57

(64.77) 7

(7.95) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.41 26.69 4

(3.48) 18

(15.65) 24

(20.87) 65

(56.52) 4

(3.48) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.84 19.53 3

(9.38) 3

(9.38) 22

(68.75) 4

(12.50) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.72 24.73 3

(12.00) 6

(24.00) 11

(44.00) 5

(20.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 0.58 21.79 9

(10.84) 23

(27.71) 45

(54.22) 6

(7.23) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.53 25.50 2

(2.02) 15

(15.15) 18

(18.18) 57

(57.58) 7

(7.07) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.86 16.32 2

(4.65) 6

(13.95) 31

(72.09) 4

(9.30) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.75 22.13 3

(7.50) 11

(27.50) 19

(47.50) 7

(17.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.64 21.43 1

(0.58) 16

(9.36) 39

(22.81) 102

(59.65) 13

(7.60) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.46 26.30 6

(2.80) 33

(15.42) 42

(19.63) 122

(57.01) 11

(5.14) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.85 17.92 5

(6.67) 9

(12.00) 53

(70.67) 8

(10.67) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 16.10 (df : 12) C = 0.25; t = 3.63* (df : 246) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 15.88 (df : 12) C = 0.24; t = 1.83 (df : 246) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 25.60* (df : 12) C = 0.22; t = 4.84** (df : 496)

Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages. ** Significant at one percent level of significance. * Significant at five percent level of significance.

Age wise analysis of parent respondents show WAS 0.84 for Bathinda respondents and 0.86

for Ludhiana respondents from the age category of above 45 years, who agree to the statement in

majority followed by respondents from the age category of up to 35 years with WAS of 0.80

(Bathinda) and 0.72 (Ludhiana). However, co-efficient of variation shows maximum variations in

the responses of respondents from the age category of 40-45 years. Statistically significant value of

chi-square and F-test in case of total number of respondents explains that age has significant

influence on the opinion of respondents only when they are combined. Further, insignificant value of

chi-square in both the cities show that respondents of different age groups have similar opinion

235

regarding the statement in both the cities and a few variations are just because of sample

fluctuations, but significant value of F-test for Bathinda respondents inferences diverse opinion of

respondents of different age groups. Hence, Table 6.2 concludes that the age has significant

influence on the opinion of Bathinda respondents and total number of respondents.

Table 6.3


Occupation Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Business 0.45 27.83 5

(5.15) 12

(12.37) 20

(20.62) 54

(55.67) 6

(6.19) 97

(100)

Service 0.68 20.65 16

(10.46) 28

(18.30) 98

(64.05) 11

(7.19) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.60 23.33 20

(13.25)

35

(23.18)

81

(53.64)

15

(9.93)

151

(100)

Service 0.65 22.47 2

(2.02) 9

(9.09) 18

(18.18) 63

(63.64) 7

(7.07) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.54 25.14 5

(2.02) 32

(12.90) 55

(22.18) 135

(54.44) 21

(8.47) 248

(100)

Service 0.67 21.25 2

(0.79)

25

(9.92)

46

(18.25)

161

(63.89)

18

(7.14)

252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 9.02 (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 1.961* (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 6.24 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 0.409 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 5.43 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.629 (df : 498)

Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

* Significant at five percent level of significance.

Table 6.3 depicts that 71.14 percent Bathinda respondents and 70.71 percent Ludhiana

respondents from service class agree to the statement in majority. WAS 0.68 (Bathinda) and 0.65

(Ludhiana) also signifies it. Co-efficient of variation also shows that respondents from service class

in both the cities show more consistency in their responses. Statistical results explain indifferent

opinion of the respondents of different occupations and a few variations are just because of sample

fluctuations whereas, statistical value of F-test and co-efficient of contingency witnesses significant

association between respondents of Bathinda with respect to their occupation.

236

Table 6.4


Gender Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Male 0.60 24.17 4

(2.08) 22

(11.46) 35

(18.23) 116

(60.42) 15

(7.81) 192

(100)

Female 0.55 22.25 1

(1.72) 6

(10.34) 13

(22.41) 36

(62.07) 2

(3.45) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.57 23.53 2

(1.23) 23

(14.11) 27

(16.56) 102

(62.58) 9

(5.52) 163

(100)

Female 0.71 21.56 6

(6.90) 26

(29.89) 42

(48.28) 13

(14.94) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.59 23.96 6

(1.69) 45

(12.68) 62

(17.46) 218

(61.41) 24

(6.76) 355

(100)

Female 0.65 21.92 1

(0.69) 12

(8.28) 39

(26.90) 78

(53.79) 15

(10.34) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.75 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.432 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 16.10** (df : 4) C = 0.25; t = 1.312 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 9.72* (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 0.739 (df : 498)

Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages. ** Significant at one percent level of significance.


Although both male and female respondents agree to the statement in majority as WAS is

above 0.50 in all the cases but it is evident from Table 6.4 that 68.22 percent male respondents from

Bathinda and 63.22 percent female respondents from Ludhiana agree to the statement in majority.

0.60 WAS for Bathinda respondents and 0.71 WAS for Ludhiana respondents signify the result.

Female respondents show more consistency in their responses as co-efficient of variation is 22.25

percent as compared to 24.17 percent for the male respondents in Bathinda and co-efficient of

variation is 21.56 percent for female respondents in Ludhiana as compared to male respondents who

have co-efficient of variation 23.53 percent. Statistically insignificant value of t-test in both the cities

explain indifferent opinion of the respondents and a few variations are just because of sample

fluctuations, but significant value of chi-square and co-efficient of contingency witness significant

237

association between Ludhiana respondents and the total number of respondents with respect to their

gender.

Table 6.5


Lady of Household Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Working 0.75 18.40 2

(7.14) 5

(17.86) 19

(67.86) 2

(7.14) 28

(100)

Non-working 0.57 24.37 5

(2.25) 26

(11.71) 43

(19.37) 133

(59.91) 15

(6.76) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.65 20.82 5

(7.94) 18

(28.57) 34

(53.97) 6

(9.52) 63

(100)


(1.07) 24

(12.83) 35

(18.72) 110

(58.82) 16

(8.56) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.68 20.11 7

(7.69) 23

(25.27) 53

(58.24) 8

(8.79) 91

(100)


(1.71)

50

(12.22)

78

(19.07)

243

(59.41)

31

(7.58)

409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 1.39 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 1.250 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.05 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.360 (df : 248)

Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.47 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 1.041 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

WAS 0.75 for Bathinda and 0.65 for Ludhiana signifies that 75 percent Bathinda respondents

and 63.49 percent Ludhiana respondents who have working lady at their household agree to the

statement in majority. Co-efficient of variation also shows the consistency in the responses of these

respondents as value of CV is 18.40 percent for Bathinda respondents and 20.82 percent for

Ludhiana respondents. Though WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases but Table 6.5 concludes that the

respondents in both the cities have almost similar opinion regarding the statement irrespective of the

lady of household working or non-working (deduced from insignificant value of chi-square and t-

test). Co-efficient of contingency (0.13) shows good deal of association among the respondents of

Ludhiana.

238

Table 6.6


Number of Children Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

One 0.43 28.57 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 1

(7.14) 10

(71.43)

14 (100)

Two 0.61 22.99 2

(1.37) 17

(11.64) 27

(18.49) 90

(61.64) 10

(6.85) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.59 23.68 2

(2.22) 9

(10.00) 20

(22.22) 52

(57.78) 7

(7.78) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.38 27.22 3

(23.08) 3

(23.08) 6

(46.15) 1

(7.69) 13

(100)

Two 0.70 21.62 1

(0.63) 18

(11.39) 22

(13.92) 104

(65.82) 13

(8.23) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.51 24.22 1

(1.27) 8

(10.13) 28

(35.44) 34

(43.04) 8

(10.13) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.41 27.86 1

(3.70) 5

(18.52) 4

(14.81) 16

(59.26) 1

(3.70) 27

(100)

Two 0.65 22.47 3

(0.99) 35

(11.51) 49

(16.12) 194

(63.82) 23

(7.57) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.55 24.23 3

(1.78)

17

(10.06)

48

(28.40)

86

(50.89)

15

(8.88)

169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 5.44 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 0.29 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 18.82* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 1.93 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 15.48 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.63 (df : 2, 497)

Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages. * Significant at five percent level of significance.

Number of children wise analysis of parent respondents in Table 6.6 demonstrates that

respondents who have two children show more consistency in their responses (deduced from value

of CV) and they also agree to the statement in majority. WAS 0.61 (Bathinda) and 0.70 (Ludhiana)

shows that 68.69 percent Bathinda respondents and 74.05 percent Ludhiana respondents having two

children agree to the statement. Further insignificant value of F-test accepts the null hypothesis that

the respondents‟ perception does not depend on number of children they have. But significant value

of chi-square for Ludhiana shows that respondents of this city have significant influence of number

of children they have. While 0.26 value of co-efficient of contingency also represents high level of

association among these respondents.

239

Table 6.7


Income Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.44 28.49 5

(4.67) 18

(16.82) 14

(13.08) 65

(60.75) 5

(4.67) 107

(100)

10-20 0.63 20.39 8

(8.51)

26

(27.66)

53

(56.38)

7

(7.45)

94

(100)

Above 20 0.86 16.58 2

(4.08) 8

(16.33) 34

(69.39) 5

(10.20) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.48 26.15 11

(16.67) 20

(30.30) 27

(40.91) 8

(12.12) 66

(100)

10-20 0.51 22.79 1

(1.15)

10

(11.49)

24

(27.59)

48

(55.17)

4

(4.60)

87

(100)

Above 20 0.81 19.95 1

(1.03) 8

(8.25) 9

(9.28) 69

(71.13) 10

(10.31) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.46 27.46 5

(2.89) 29

(16.76) 34

(19.65) 92

(53.18) 13

(7.51) 173

(100)

10-20 0.57 21.57 1

(0.55)

18

(9.94)

50

(27.62)

101

(55.80)

11

(6.08)

181

(100)

Above 20 0.83 18.80 1

(0.68) 10

(6.85) 17

(11.64) 103

(70.55) 15

(10.27) 146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 20.83** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 4.29* (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 23.07** (df : 8) C = 0.29; F = 4.45* (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 28.26** (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 8.25** (df : 2, 497)


** Significant at one percent level of significance. * Significant at five percent level of significance.

Majority of Bathinda respondents (79.59 percent) and Ludhiana respondents (81.44 percent)

from the high income group of above Rs. 20,000 agree to the statement. Table 6.7 shows highest

WAS 0.86 (Bathinda) and 0.81 (Ludhiana) from this income group. However, maximum variation is

found from the responses of respondents from low income category of up to Rs. 10,000 in both the

cities (deduced from value of C.V.). Statistical value of chi-square and F-test in all the cases infers

that respondents‟ perception significantly varies with respect to income. However, co-efficient of

contingency (0.29) for Ludhiana respondents and (0.28) for Bathinda respondents also show strong

association among the respondents of different income groups.

240

Table 6.8


Education Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Matric 0.38 27.22 2

(2.82) 13

(18.31) 15

(21.13) 38

(53.52) 3

(4.23) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.62 22.93 3

(2.42) 11

(8.87) 24

(19.35) 78

(62.90) 8

(6.45) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.80 18.95 4

(7.27) 9

(16.36) 36

(65.45) 6

(10.91) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.42 21.93 8

(14.04) 18

(31.58) 30

(52.63) 1

(1.75) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.62 22.59 1

(0.83) 13

(10.83) 26

(21.67) 70

(58.33) 10

(8.33) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.77 23.34 1

(1.37) 8

(10.96) 9

(12.33) 44

(60.27) 11

(15.07) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.40 25.00 2

(1.56) 21

(16.41) 33

(25.78) 68

(53.12) 4

(3.12) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.62 22.65 4

(1.64) 24

(9.84) 50

(20.49) 148

(60.66) 18

(7.38) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.78 21.69 1

(0.78) 12

(9.38) 18

(14.06) 80

(62.50) 17

(13.28) 128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 9.36 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 4.01* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 13.60 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 2.80 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 18.34* (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 6.88** (df : 2, 497)


Table 6.8 portrays that 76.36 percent Bathinda respondents and 75.34 percent Ludhiana

respondents qualified up to postgraduation level agree to the statement in majority. The highest

value of WAS 0.80 (Bathinda) and 0.77 (Ludhiana) also signifies the result. Further, insignificant

value of chi-square for both the cities explain that respondents have almost similar opinion regarding

the statement irrespective of their educational level but significant value of chi-square and F-test for

total number of respondents explain that education has a significant influence on the opinion of

respondents only when they are combined. Significant value of F-test for Bathinda respondents also

infers diverse opinions of the respondents of different educational level.

241

Comparative Analysis of the statement

Comparative analysis of the statement shows that where income has significant influence on

the opinion of respondents of both the cities, lady of household does not have any impact on the

perception of respondents. Age, occupation and education significantly influence Bathinda

respondents and gender and number of children have significant impact on the perception of

Ludhiana respondents.

6.2.2 Change in Family Income Causes Change in Buying Behaviour

Due to increase of women in work force there is increase in double income families and this

change in family income causes changes in buying behaviour of household.

Table 6.9

Change in Family Income Causes Change in Buying Behaviour:



Bathinda 0.91 23.79 3

(1.20) 27

(10.80) 22

(8.80) 136

(54.40) 62

(24.80) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 1.08 23.28 3

(1.20) 21

(8.40) 23

(9.20) 108

(43.20) 95

(38.00) 250

(100)

Total 1.00 23.75 6

(1.20) 48

(9.60) 45

(9.00) 244

(48.80) 157

(31.40) 500

(100)

chi^2 = 10.92* (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 2.088* (df : 498)



Significant WAS of 0.91 for Bathinda respondents and 1.08 for Ludhiana respondents in

Table 6.9 clearly explains that 79.20 percent Bathinda respondents and 81.20 percent Ludhiana

respondents agree that change in family income causes change in the buying behaviour of

household. Statistically significant value of chi-square, t-test and co-efficient of contingency shows

significant association among the respondents of both the cities.

242

Table 6.10




Bathinda

Up to 35 0.73 28.42 3

(20.00) 2

(13.33) 6

(40.00) 4

(26.67) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.92 22.70 1

(1.14) 8

(9.09) 9

(10.23) 49

(55.68) 21

(23.86) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.87 24.55 2

(1.74) 13

(11.30) 9

(7.83) 65

(56.52) 26

(22.61) 115

(100)

Above 45 1.09 21.52 3

(9.38) 2

(6.25) 16

(50.00) 11

(34.38) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 1.20 26.90 4

(16.00) 2

(8.00) 4

(16.00) 15

(60.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 1.04 24.75 2

(2.41) 7

(8.43) 7

(8.43) 37

(44.58) 30

(36.14) 83

(100)

40 – 45 1.13 19.37 5

(5.05) 11

(11.11) 49

(49.49) 34

(34.34) 99

(100)

Above 45 1.00 26.50 1

(2.33) 5

(11.63) 3

(6.98) 18

(41.86) 16

(37.21) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 1.02 28.04 7

(17.50) 4

(10.00) 10

(25.00) 19

(47.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.98 23.87 3

(1.75) 15

(8.77) 16

(9.36) 86

(50.29) 51

(29.82) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.99 22.31 2

(0.93) 18

(8.41) 20

(9.35) 114

(53.27) 60

(28.04) 214

(100)

Above 45 1.04 24.50 1

(1.33) 8

(10.67) 5

(6.67) 34

(45.33) 27

(36.00) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 5.53 (df : 12) C = 0.15; F = 0.67 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 16.10 (df : 12) C = 0.25; F = 0.38 (df : 3, 246) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 15.23 (df : 12) C = 0.17; F = 0.09 (df : 3, 496)


WAS (1.09) of Bathinda respondents from the age category of above 45 years and WAS

(1.20) for Ludhiana respondents from the age category of up to 35 years show that majority parents

agree that change in family income causes change in the buying behaviour (Table 6.10). Co-efficient

of variation also shows that Bathinda respondents of above 45 years and Ludhiana respondents of 40

– 45 years show more consistency in their responses. Though WAS is above 1 or equal to 1 in all the

cases but insignificant value of chi-square and F-test explain that the respondents‟ perception does

not change with age. Co-efficient of contingency (0.25) witnesses huge association among the

respondents of different age groups.

243

Table 6.11 Change in Family Income Causes Change in Buying Behaviour:

Occupation Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents Group/Sub group WAS CV SDA DA I A SA Total

Bathinda

Business 0.80 27.11 1

(1.03) 16

(16.49) 9

(9.28) 46

(47.42) 25

(25.77) 97

(100)

Service 0.97 21.66 2

(1.31) 11

(7.19) 13

(8.50) 90

(58.82) 37

(24.18) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 1.07 23.10 2

(1.32) 13

(8.61) 11

(7.28) 71

(47.02) 54

(35.76) 151

(100)

Service 1.10 23.66 1

(1.01) 8

(8.08) 12

(12.12) 37

(37.37) 41

(41.41) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.97 24.94 3

(1.21)

29

(11.69)

20

(8.06)

117

(47.18)

79

(31.85)

248

(100)

Service 1.02 22.39 3

(1.19) 19

(7.54) 25

(9.92) 127

(50.40) 78

(30.95) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 6.32 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 1.352 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.38 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.227 (df : 248)

Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.02 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.662 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

Although respondents from both the occupations agree with the statement in majority but

Table 6.11 manifests that respondents from service occupation show higher WAS 0.97 for Bathinda

and 1.10 for Ludhiana which explain that respondents from this occupation agree to the statement in

majority. Further, insignificant value of chi-square and t-test accepts the null hypothesis which

means that occupation does not have significant influence on respondents‟ perception in both the

cities.

Table 6.12 Change in Family Income Causes Change in Buying Behaviour:

Gender Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents Group/Sub group WAS CV SDA DA I A SA Total

Bathinda

Male 0.91 24.04 3

(1.56) 20

(10.42) 16

(8.33) 106

(55.21) 47

(24.48) 192

(100)

Female 0.91 23.53 7

(12.07) 6

(10.34) 30

(51.72) 15

(25.86) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.99 23.81 2

(1.23) 16

(9.82) 15

(9.20) 79

(48.47) 51

(31.29) 163

(100)

Female 1.26 21.83 1

(1.15) 5

(5.75) 8

(9.20) 29

(33.33) 44

(50.57) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.94 23.86 5

(1.41) 36

(10.14) 31

(8.73) 185

(52.11) 98

(27.61) 355

(100)

Female 1.12 22.82 1

(0.69) 12

(8.28) 14

(9.66) 59

(40.69) 59

(40.69) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.36 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 0.055 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 9.68* (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 2.224* (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 9.28 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 1.947 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.


244

Gender wise analysis in Table 6.12 demonstrates that in Bathinda both the male and female

respondents agree to the statement equally as WAS is 0.91 for both the genders and they also have

similar opinion regarding the statement as chi-square test and t-test shows insignificant value. But in

Ludhiana female respondents with higher WAS of 1.26 agree to the statement in majority. Statistical

test also shows that Ludhiana respondents of different genders have different opinions regarding the

statement (deduced from significant value of chi-square and t-test).

Table 6.13




Bathinda

Working 1.18 14.35 3

(10.71) 17

(60.71) 8

(28.57) 28

(100)

No-working 0.87 24.81 3

(1.35) 27

(12.16) 19

(8.56) 119

(53.60) 54

(24.32) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 1.16 24.04 2

(3.17)

3

(4.76)

6

(9.52)

24

(38.10)

28

(44.44)

63

(100)

No-working 1.06 23.15 1

(0.53) 18

(9.63) 17

(9.09) 84

(44.92) 67

(35.83) 187

(100)

Total

Working 1.16 21.39 2

(2.20) 3

(3.30) 9

(9.89) 41

(45.05) 36

(39.56) 91

(100)


(0.98)

45

(11.00)

36

(8.80)

203

(49.63)

121

(29.58)

409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.33 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 2.334* (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.50 (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 0.699 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 8.30 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 1.969* (df : 498)


Majority respondents who have working ladies or housewives at their houses agree to the

statement. Though WAS is significant in all the cases but respondents have almost similar opinion

irrespective of the lady of household working or non-working. But significant value of t-test for

Bathinda and total number of respondents infers diverse opinion of the respondents. Hence, Table

6.13 concludes that all the respondents agree to the statement but respondents who have working

lady at their house agree in majority.

245

Table 6.14




Bathinda

One 0.50 30.00 4

(28.57) 1

(7.14) 7

(50.00) 2

(14.29) 14

(100)

Two 1.02 21.39 3

(2.05) 8

(5.48) 11

(7.53) 85

(58.22) 39

(26.71) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.79 25.86 15

(16.67) 10

(11.11) 44

(48.89) 21

(23.33) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.69 32.52 1

(7.69) 2

(15.38)

7 (53.85)

3 (23.08)

13 (100)

Two 1.08 22.55 2

(1.27) 12

(7.59) 14

(8.86) 74

(46.84) 56

(35.44) 158

(100)

Three/More 1.16 22.84 7

(8.86) 9

(11.39) 27

(34.18) 36

(45.57) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.59 31.48 1

(3.70) 6

(22.22) 1

(3.70) 14

(51.85) 5

(18.52) 27

(100)

Two 1.05 22.22 5

(1.64) 20

(6.58) 25

(8.22) 159

(52.30) 95

(31.25) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.96 24.75 22

(13.02) 19

(11.24) 71

(42.01) 57

(33.73) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 15.64* (df : 8) C = 0.24; F = 3.19* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 12.58 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 1.38 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 19.49* (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 3.05* (df : 2, 497)


Number of children wise analysis of parent respondents in Table 6.14 clearly explains that

WAS of 1.02 for Bathinda respondents who have two children and WAS of 1.16 for Ludhiana

respondents who have three/more children agree to the statement in majority. Co-efficient of

variation explains that respondents who have one child have more variation in their responses as

compared to other respondents. Further, significant value of chi-square and F-test for Bathinda

explains that the number of children have significant influence on the opinion of respondents of this

city. But insignificant value of chi-square and F-test for Ludhiana explains that respondents having

different number of children have indifferent opinion regarding the statement. 0.24 value of co-

efficient of contingency for Bathinda respondents also correspond to significant association among

the respondents of this city.

246

Table 6.15




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.86 24.87 2

(1.87) 12

(11.21) 10

(9.35) 58

(54.21) 25

(23.36) 107

(100)

10-20 0.96 22.47 9

(9.57) 12

(12.77) 47

(50.00) 26

(27.66) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.92 23.98 1

(2.04) 6

(12.24)

31 (63.27)

11 (22.45)

49 (100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 1.08 22.79 6

(9.09) 8

(12.12) 27

(40.91) 25

(37.88) 66

(100)

10-20 0.98 26.88 3

(3.45) 8

(9.20) 9

(10.34) 35

(40.23) 32

(36.78) 87

(100)

Above 20 1.19 20.05 7

(7.22) 6

(6.19) 46

(47.42) 38

(39.18) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.94 24.11 2

(1.16) 18

(10.40) 18

(10.40) 85

(49.13) 50

(28.90) 173

(100)

10-20 0.97 24.69 3

(1.66) 17

(9.39) 21

(11.60) 82

(45.30) 58

(32.04) 181

(100)

Above 20 1.10 21.71 1

(0.68)

13

(8.90)

6

(4.11)

77

(52.74)

49

(33.56)

146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 9.64 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 0.28 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 8.31 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.10 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Income) Chi^2 = 7.97 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 1.18 (df : 2, 497)


It is evident from table 6.15 that although WAS is significant in all the cases but it is higher

0.96 in case of Bathinda respondent from income category of Rs. 10,000 - 20,000 and 1.19 in case of

Ludhiana respondents from the income category of above Rs. 20,000. Which shows that respondents

of these income groups agree to the statement in majority. However, co-efficient of variation shows

Bathinda respondents from low income group and Ludhiana respondents from middle income group

has maximum variation in their responses. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test

shows that respondents of different income groups have almost analogous opinion to the statement

and a few variations are due to sample fluctuations.

247

Table 6.16




Bathinda

Matric 0.80 24.47 1

(1.41) 8

(11.27) 9

(12.68) 39

(54.93) 14

(19.72) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.85 25.45 1

(0.81) 18

(14.52) 10

(8.06) 64

(51.61) 31

(25.00) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 1.16 18.27 1

(1.82) 1

(1.82) 3

(5.45) 33

(60.00) 17

(30.91) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 1.11 25.55 1

(1.75) 7

(12.28) 2

(3.51) 22

(38.60) 25

(43.86) 57

(100)

Graduate 1.04 22.28 1

(0.83) 9

(7.50) 13

(10.83) 58

(48.33) 39

(32.50) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 1.14 23.19 1

(1.37) 5

(6.85) 8

(10.96) 28

(38.36) 31

(42.47) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.94 25.38 2

(1.56) 15

(11.72) 11

(8.59) 61

(47.66) 39

(30.47) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.95 24.05 2

(0.82) 27

(11.07) 23

(9.43) 122

(50.00) 70

(28.69) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 1.15 21.20 2

(1.56)

6

(4.69)

11

(8.59)

61

(47.66)

48

(37.50)

128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 10.12 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 2.75 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 7.51 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 0.24 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 7.30 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 2.24 (df : 2, 497)


Education does not have any significant influence on the opinion of Bathinda respondents

and Ludhiana respondents (deduced from insignificant value of chi-square and F-test) as shown by

Table 6.16. Higher WAS for postgraduate respondents 1.16 (Bathinda) and 1.14 (Ludhiana) explains

that more educated respondents agree to the statements in majority.


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that age, occupation, income and education do

not have any significant impact on the respondents‟ perception but gender has a significant influence

only on the opinion of Ludhiana respondents whereas, lady of household and number of children

significantly change the opinion of Bathinda respondents.

248

6.2.3 Mother and Children are Able to Finance Some of the Purchase Decisions Rejected by

Father

The days are gone when only the father knew the best and made purchases, today the mother

and children are able to finance some of the purchase decisions rejected by the father.

Table 6.17

Mother and Children are Able to Finance Some of the Purchase Decisions:



Bathinda 0.11 35.37 21

(8.40) 61

(24.40) 52

(20.80) 101

(40.40) 15

(6.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.14 34.71 21

(8.40) 54

(21.60) 61

(24.40) 98

(39.20) 16

(6.40) 250

(100)

Total 0.12 34.94 42

(8.40) 115

(23.00) 113

(22.60) 199

(39.80) 31

(6.20) 500

(100)

chi^2 = 1.22 (df : 4) C = 0.05; t = 0.245 (df : 498)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.

Table 6.17 reflects low level of WAS which demonstrates that respondents from both the

cities do not agree to the statement up to the desired extent. WAS 0.11 from Bathinda and 0.14 from

Ludhiana shows that only 46.40 percent Bathinda respondents and 45.60 percent Ludhiana

respondents agree to the statement where 32.80 percent Bathinda respondents and 30.00 percent

Ludhiana respondents disagree, rest shows indifferent attitude towards the statement. Co-efficient of

variation shows that Ludhiana respondents shows more consistency in their responses as CV is 34.71

percent as compared to Bathinda respondents where co-efficient of variation is 35.37 percent.

Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and t-test shows negative association among the

respondents of the two cities. This is also supported by lower value of co-efficient of contingency.

249

Table 6.18




Bathinda

Up to 35 0.40 30.00 1

(6.67) 1

(6.67) 6

(40.00) 5

(33.33) 2

(13.33) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.31 32.02 5

(5.68) 17

(19.32) 20

(22.73) 38

(43.18) 8

(9.09) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.02 37.75 12

(10.43) 33

(28.70) 16

(13.91) 49

(42.61) 5

(4.35) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.22 34.53 3

(9.38) 10

(31.25) 10

(31.25) 9

(28.12)

32 (100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.28 37.20 3

(12.00) 3

(12.00) 7

(28.00) 8

(32.00) 4

(16.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 0.07 33.55 6

(7.23) 20

(24.10) 22

(26.51) 32

(38.55) 3

(3.61) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.13 34.82 10

(10.10) 19

(19.19) 22

(22.22) 44

(44.44) 4

(4.04) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.19 34.80 2

(4.65) 12

(27.91) 10

(23.26) 14

(32.56) 5

(11.63) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.33 34.53 4

(10.00)

4

(10.00)

13

(32.50)

13

(32.50)

6

(15.00)

40

(100)

35 – 40 0.19 32.92 11

(6.43) 37

(21.64) 42

(24.56) 70

(40.94) 11

(6.43) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.07 36.48 22

(10.28) 52

(24.30) 38

(17.76) 93

(43.46) 9

(4.21) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.01 35.22 5

(6.67)

22

(29.33)

20

(26.67)

23

(30.67)

5

(6.67)

75

(100)



Table 6.18 shows that from all the age groups respondents of younger age group of up to 35

agree to the statement more as WAS is the highest 0.40 (Bathinda) and 0.28 (Ludhiana). Although

WAS is below 0.50 in all the age categories but it is negative (– 0.22) in case of Bathinda

respondents belonging to the age category of above 45 years, who do not agree in majority. Co-

efficient of variation also shows that Bathinda respondents from the age group of up to 35 years and

Ludhiana respondents from the age group of 35 – 40 years show more consistency in their responses.

Insignificant value of chi-square and F-test results in acceptance of null hypothesis which means that

respondents‟ perception does not depend on his/her age.

250

Table 6.19 Mother and Children are Able to Finance Some of the Purchase Decisions:

Occupation Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents Group/Sub group WAS CV SDA DA I A SA Total

Bathinda

Business 0.12 32.05 5

(5.15) 25

(25.77) 23

(23.71) 41

(42.27) 3

(3.09) 97

(100)

Service 0.10 37.42 16

(10.46) 36

(23.53) 29

(18.95) 60

(39.22) 12

(7.84) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.17 35.02 12

(7.95) 35

(23.18) 31

(20.53) 62

(41.06) 11

(7.28) 151

(100)

Service 0.09 33.98 9

(9.09) 19

(19.19) 30

(30.30) 36

(36.36) 5

(5.05) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.15 33.97 17

(6.85)

60

(24.19)

54

(21.77)

103

(41.53)

14

(5.65)

248

(100)

Service 0.10 36.13 25

(9.92) 55

(21.83) 59

(23.41) 96

(38.10) 17

(6.75) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 5.13 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 0.139 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.68 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.537 (df : 248)

Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 2.47 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 0.511 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

Although WAS shows very lower value for the respondents of both business and service

class but WAS 0.12 for Bathinda respondents and 0.17 for Ludhiana respondents from the Business

class shows that respondents of this occupation agree to the statement more (Table 6.19). Further,

insignificant value of chi-square and t-test shows that the respondents of different occupations have

similar opinion regarding the statement in both the cities.

Table 6.20 Mother and Children are Able to Finance Some of the Purchase Decisions:

Gender Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents Group/Sub group WAS CV SDA DA I A SA Total

Bathinda

Male 0.10 35.81 16

(8.33)

49

(25.52)

39

(20.31)

75

(39.06)

13

(6.77)

192

(100)

Female 0.14 33.76 5

(8.62) 12

(20.69) 13

(22.41) 26

(44.83) 2

(3.45) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.01 37.54 18

(11.04) 42

(25.77) 31

(19.02) 64

(39.26) 8

(4.91) 163

(100)

Female 0.37 28.19 3

(3.45) 12

(13.79) 30

(34.48) 34

(39.08) 8

(9.20) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.06 36.60 34

(9.58) 91

(25.63) 70

(19.72) 139

(39.15) 21

(5.92) 355

(100)

Female 0.28 30.49 8

(5.52) 24

(16.55) 43

(29.66) 60

(41.38) 10

(6.90) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.71 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.210 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 14.85** (df : 4) C = 0.24; t = 2.633** (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 10.50* (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 2.092* (df : 498)


251

Both the male and female respondents do not agree in majority but female respondents of

both the cities agree more as compared to male respondents as Table 6.20 demonstrates. WAS 0.14

for female respondents of Bathinda and 0.37 for female respondents of Ludhiana signifies the result.

Co-efficient of variation also explains consistency in the responses of female respondents. Further,

insignificant value of chi-square and t-test for Bathinda respondents explain that both the male and

female respondents‟ perception appeals almost equally. But significant value of chi-square and t-test

for Ludhiana respondents and total number of respondents explain that gender has significant impact

on the opinion of respondents. Hence, respondents of different genders have different opinions

regarding the statement in Ludhiana city only.

Table 6.21




Bathinda

Working 0.36 32.14 2

(7.14) 5

(17.86) 4

(14.29) 15

(53.57) 2

(7.14) 28

(100)


(8.56) 56

(25.23) 48

(21.62) 86

(38.74) 13

(5.86) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.35 29.55 3

(4.76) 10

(15.87) 17

(26.98) 28

(44.44) 5

(7.94) 63

(100)


(9.63) 44

(23.53) 44

(23.53) 70

(37.43) 11

(5.88) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.35 30.45 5

(5.49) 15

(16.48) 21

(23.08) 43

(47.25) 7

(7.69) 91

(100)


(9.05) 100

(24.45) 92

(22.49) 156

(38.14) 24

(5.87) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 2.68 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.276 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 3.74 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.911 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.14 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 2.318* (df : 498)


Table 6.21 manifests that WAS is higher where lady of household is working, as Bathinda

shows 0.36 WAS and Ludhiana shows 0.35 WAS for respondents who have working lady at their

household. However co-efficient of variation shows much variation in the responses of respondents

252

who have non-working lady at their household. Statistically insignificant values of chi-square and t-

test explain that the respondents‟ perception do not depend on lady of household either working or

non-working in both the cities, but significant value of t-test for total number of respondents explain

that they have different opinions regarding the statement with respect to the lady of household

(working or non-working) only when they are combined.

Table 6.22




Bathinda

One 0.14 33.76 1

(7.14) 4

(28.57) 1

(7.14) 8

(57.14)

14 (100)

Two 0.15 35.24 12

(8.22) 35

(23.97) 28

(19.18) 61

(41.78) 10

(6.85) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.04 35.53 8

(8.89) 22

(24.44) 23

(25.56) 32

(35.56) 5

(5.56) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.08 34.74 2

(15.38) 1

(7.69) 4

(30.77) 6

(46.15)

13 (100)

Two 0.17 35.02 13

(8.23) 36

(22.78) 31

(19.62) 67

(42.41) 11

(6.96) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.08 33.77 6

(7.59) 17

(21.52) 26

(32.91) 25

(31.65) 5

(6.33) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.11 34.41 3

(11.11) 5

(18.52) 5

(18.52) 14

(51.85)

27 (100)

Two 0.16 35.13 25

(8.22) 71

(23.36) 59

(19.41) 128

(42.11) 21

(6.91) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.06 34.64 14

(8.28) 39

(23.08) 49

(28.99) 57

(33.73) 10

(5.92) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 5.20 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.26 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 8.76 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.22 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 10.03 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.47 (df : 2, 497)


WAS 0.15 for Bathinda respondents and 0.17 for Ludhiana respondents clarify that the

respondents having two children agree to the statement in majority. Table 6.22 concludes that the

number of children of respondents does not show any significant impact on respondents‟ perception

as statistical value of chi-square and t-test shows insignificant values.

253

Table 6.23




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.07 34.85 9

(8.41) 25

(23.36) 29

(27.10) 38

(35.51) 6

(5.61) 107

(100)

10-20 0.15 35.87 7

(7.45) 25

(26.60) 17

(18.09) 37

(39.36) 8

(8.51) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.14 35.35 5

(10.20) 11

(22.45) 6

(12.24) 26

(53.06) 1

(2.04) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.11 32.15 3

(4.55) 17

(25.76) 20

(30.30) 22

(33.33) 4

(6.06) 66

(100)

10-20 0.17 30.28 5

(5.75) 16

(18.39) 28

(32.18) 35

(40.23) 3

(3.45) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.12 39.74 13

(13.40) 21

(21.65) 13

(13.40) 41

(42.27) 9

(9.28) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.08 33.77 12

(6.94) 42

(24.28) 49

(28.32) 60

(34.68) 10

(5.78) 173

(100)

10-20 0.16 33.23 12

(6.63) 41

(22.65) 45

(24.86) 72

(39.78) 11

(6.08) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.13 38.34 18

(12.33)

32

(21.92)

19

(13.01)

67

(45.89)

10

(6.85)

146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 9.60 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 0.17 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 16.93* (df : 8) C = 0.25; F = 0.08 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 15.51* (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 0.23 (df : 2, 497)


Income wise analysis of respondents in Table 6.23 shows that the respondents of middle

income group of Rs. 10,000 - 20,000 agree to the statement in majority as compared to the

respondents of low income group and high income group as WAS shows higher value. Co-efficient

of variation shows the maximum variation in the responses of middle income group respondents

from Bathinda city and higher income group respondents of Ludhiana city. Insignificant value of F-

test results acceptance of the null hypothesis which means that respondents do not have any

significant influence of income but significant value of chi-square for Ludhiana respondents and

total number of respondents show that respondents have different opinions regarding the statement

with respect to income.

254

Table 6.24




Bathinda

Matric 0.08 30.19 4

(5.63) 14

(19.72) 27

(38.03) 24

(33.80) 2

(2.82) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.05 38.36 13

(10.48) 35

(28.23) 17

(13.71) 51

(41.13) 8

(6.45) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.29 34.04 4

(7.27) 12

(21.82) 8

(14.55) 26

(47.27) 5

(9.09) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.14 31.21 4

(7.02) 9

(15.79) 22

(38.60) 19

(33.33) 3

(5.26) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.09 34.30 9

(7.50) 31

(25.83) 25

(20.83) 50

(41.67) 5

(4.17) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.21 37.07 8

(10.96) 14

(19.18) 14

(19.18) 29

(39.73) 8

(10.96) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.11 30.55 8

(6.25) 23

(17.97) 49

(38.28) 43

(33.59) 5

(3.91) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.07 36.48 22

(9.02) 66

(27.05) 42

(17.21) 101

(41.39) 13

(5.33) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.24 35.80 12

(9.38) 26

(20.31) 22

(17.19) 55

(42.97) 13

(10.16) 128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 20.61** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 0.95 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 13.16 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 0.25 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 29.56** (df : 8) C = 0.24; F = 1.06 (df : 2, 497)


** Significant at one percent level of significance.

It is evident from Table 6.24 that postgraduate respondents 56.36 percent from Bathinda and

50.69 percent from Ludhiana agree to the statement in majority. WAS 0.29 (Bathinda) and 0.21

(Ludhiana) signifies the result. Co-efficient of variation shows that respondents who are educated up

to matric are more consistent in their responses. Statistically insignificant value of F-test explains

that respondents of different educational levels have indifferent opinions regarding the statement.

Chi-square is significant only for Bathinda respondents and total number of respondents which

explain that education has a significant impact on the opinion of the respondents. 0.28 value of co-

efficient of contingency also signifies enormous association among the perception of respondents

from different educational level.

255


Comparative analysis of the statement explains that the age, occupation and number of

children do not have any significant impact on the respondents‟ perception in both the cities.

However, the gender and income significantly affect the perception of Ludhiana respondents and

education significantly influences the opinion of Bathinda respondents and lady of household either

working or non-working change the opinion of respondents only when they are combined.

6.2.4 Child Giving Consent in Buying the Costly Products

When child respondents were asked to express their opinion that whether they give their

consent in buying the costly products in the family it is found that they do not agree in majority.

Table 6.25

Child Giving Consent in Buying the Costly Products:

All Child Respondents


Bathinda 0.36 32.14 12

(4.80) 51

(20.40) 50

(20.00) 108

(43.20) 29

(11.60) 250

(100)

Ludhiana – 0.08 42.12 41

(16.40) 59

(23.60) 47

(18.80) 86

(34.40) 17

(6.80) 250

(100)

Total 0.14 37.26 53

(10.60) 110

(22.00) 97

(19.40) 194

(38.80) 46

(9.20) 500

(100)

chi^2 = 22.17** (df : 4) C = 0.21; t = 4.343** (df : 498)


Table 6.25 depicts positive WAS 0.36 for Bathinda which explains that 54.80 percent

respondents from Bathinda agree to the statement whereas – 0.08 WAS for Ludhiana shows that if

41.20 percent respondents agree to the statement, 40.00 percent respondents disagree to it whereas

18.80 percent shows indifferent attitude towards the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows that

Bathinda respondents are more consistent in their responses as CV is 32.14 percent as compared to

42.12 percent for Ludhiana respondents. However, significant value of chi-square and t-test shows a

256

positive association between the respondents of the two cities and it is also supported by co-efficient

of contingency.

Table 6.26


Gender Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Male 0.33 32.13 5

(3.31) 34

(22.52) 38

(25.17) 54

(35.76) 20

(13.25) 151

(100)

Female 0.41 31.96 7

(7.07) 17

(17.17) 12

(12.12) 54

(54.55) 9

(9.09) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.20 37.19 13

(11.11) 22

(18.80) 23

(19.66) 47

(40.17) 12

(10.26) 117

(100)

Female 0.33 45.32 28

(21.05) 37

(27.82) 24

(18.05) 39

(29.32) 5

(3.76) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.27 34.25 18

(6.72) 56

(20.90) 61

(22.76) 101

(37.69) 32

(11.94) 268

(100)

Female 0.01 40.80 35

(15.09) 54

(23.28) 36

(15.52) 93

(40.09) 14

(6.03) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 13.46** (df : 4) C = 0.23; t = 0.594 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 11.97* (df : 4) C = 0.21; t = 3.481** (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 16.80** (df : 4) C = 0.18; t = 2.712** (df : 498)


Gender wise analysis of child respondents in Table 6.26 represents that in Bathinda female

respondents gain more importance than their male counterparts with the higher WAS of 0.41 but

insignificant value of t-test witnesses that the male and female respondents of this city do not have

different opinions regarding the statement and a few variations are just because of sample

fluctuations, but significant value of chi-square concludes rejection of null hypothesis which means

that the respondents‟ perception depend on their gender and co-efficient of contingency (0.23) also

witnesses a large association among these variables. However, in Ludhiana city negative WAS (–

0.33) of female respondents explains that they disagree with the statement in majority. Statistical

value of chi-square and t-test explains significant influence of gender on respondents‟ perception.

257

Overall 0.27 WAS for male respondents and – 0.01 WAS for female respondents show that male

respondents agree to the statement more as compared to the female respondents.

Table 6.27


Age Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 10 0.56 30.34 4

(8.00) 4

(8.00) 9

(18.00) 26

(52.00) 7

(14.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.35 33.13 5

(4.95) 21

(20.79) 24

(23.76) 36

(35.64) 15

(14.85) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.28 31.40 3

(3.03) 26

(26.26) 17

(17.17) 46

(46.46) 7

(7.07) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.06 40.14 9

(17.65) 8

(15.69) 13

(25.49) 19

(37.25) 2

(3.92) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.16 43.31 18

(17.65) 26

(25.49) 19

(18.63) 32

(31.37) 7

(6.86) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.02 41.61 14

(14.43) 25

(25.77) 15

(15.46) 35

(36.08) 8

(8.25) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.25 36.00 13

(12.87) 12

(11.88) 22

(21.78) 45

(44.55) 9

(8.91) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.09 38.83 23

(11.33) 47

(23.15) 43

(21.18) 68

(33.50) 22

(10.84) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.13 36.42 17

(8.67) 51

(26.02) 32

(16.33) 81

(41.33) 15

(7.65) 196

(100)



Table 6.27 vividly brings out the fact that Bathinda respondents of different age groups agree

to the statement as WAS is positive and it has the highest value of 0.56 for respondents who are in

the age groups of up to 10 years. Ludhiana respondents from all the age groups show negative WAS

which means that they disagree to the statement and respondents from age group of 10 – 13 years

disagree more as WAS is – 0.16. Bathinda respondents show more consistency in their responses as

compared to Ludhiana respondents (deduced from value of co-efficient of variation). Statistically

258

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in both the cities explain that the respondents of different

age groups have almost analogous opinion and variations are due to sample fluctuations.

Table 6.28


Class Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.57 27.45 3

(21.43) 2

(14.29) 7

(50.00) 2

(14.29) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.38 32.54 9

(6.25) 24

(16.67) 35

(24.31) 56

(38.89) 20

(13.89) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.32 31.33 3

(3.26) 24

(26.09) 13

(14.13) 45

(48.91) 7

(7.61) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.07 39.93 7

(17.50) 7

(17.50) 9

(22.50) 16

(40.00) 1

(2.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.18 43.62 26

(18.44) 34

(24.11) 29

(20.57) 43

(30.50) 9

(6.38) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.10 39.68 8

(11.59) 18

(26.09) 9

(13.04) 27

(39.13) 7

(10.14) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.09 37.54 7

(12.96) 10

(18.52) 11

(20.37) 23

(42.59) 3

(5.56) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.10 38.71 35

(12.28) 58

(20.35) 64

(22.46) 99

(34.74) 29

(10.18) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.22 35.09 11

(6.83) 42

(26.09) 22

(13.66) 72

(44.72) 14

(8.70) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 10.82 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 0.36 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 7.63 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.20 (df : 2, 247) Total (Class) Chi^2 = 13.19 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.60 (df : 2, 497)


It is evident from Table 6.28 that Bathinda respondents of different classes agree to the

statement as WAS is positive and it is the highest 0.57 for the respondents studying in class up to 5th

where 64.29 percent respondents agree that they give their consent in buying the costly products in

the family. Lower WAS for Ludhiana respondents studying in different classes show that they do not

agree to the statement in majority. Negative WAS of – 0.18 for Ludhiana respondents studying in

class 5th-8th shows that 42.55 percent respondents of this city disagree to the statement. Statistically

259

insignificant value of F-tests and chi-square result acceptance of null hypothesis which means that

respondents‟ perception does not vary with their class.

Table 6.29


Monthly Pocket Money Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Nil 0.34 35.93 10

(12.05) 8

(9.64) 21

(25.30) 32

(38.55) 12

(14.46) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.29 31.00 1

(1.32) 22

(28.95) 14

(18.42) 32

(42.11) 7

(9.21) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.45 28.99 1

(1.10) 21

(23.08) 15

(16.48) 44

(48.35) 10

(10.99) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.20 30.94 1

(2.17) 13

(28.26) 11

(23.91) 18

(39.13) 3

(6.52) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.55 50.20 30

(30.61) 23

(23.47) 19

(19.39) 23

(23.47) 3

(3.06) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.23 36.53 10

(9.43) 23

(21.70) 17

(16.04) 45

(42.45) 11

(10.38) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.29 34.35 11

(8.53) 21

(16.28) 32

(24.81) 50

(38.76) 15

(11.63) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.18 43.26 31

(17.82) 45

(25.86) 33

(18.97) 55

(31.61) 10

(5.75) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.33 33.03 11

(5.58) 44

(22.34) 32

(16.24) 89

(45.18) 21

(10.66) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 25.16** (df : 8) C = 0.30; F = 0.50 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 32.27** (df : 8) C = 0.34; F = 12.78** (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 27.75** (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 10.56** (df : 2, 497)


Monthly pocket money wise analysis of child respondents in Table 6.29 also reveals a very

low value of WAS in both the cities which explain that respondents do not agree to the statement up

to a desired extent. The highest WAS of 0.45 for Bathinda respondents and 0.23 for Ludhiana

respondents getting pocket money above Rs. 100 explain that the respondents from this category

agree to the statement in majority. Negative WAS of – 0.55 for respondents getting pocket money up

to Rs. 100 in Ludhiana explain that they disagree to the statement in majority. Statistically

significant value of chi-square in both the cities reject the null hypothesis which means that the

260

respondents‟ perception has significant influence of their pocket money but insignificant value of F-

test for Bathinda respondents explain that respondents getting different pocket money have similar

opinion regarding the statement and a few variations are due to sample fluctuations. Co-efficient of

contingency 0.34 signifies enormous association among the perception of respondents of Ludhiana.

Comparative Analysis of the Statement

Comparative analysis of all the variables on the statement shows that the age and class do not

have any significant impact on the respondents‟ perception in both the cities but the gender and

monthly pocket money significantly influence the opinion of respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana.

6.2.5 A Child Feels That Every Family Member has His/Her Ideas Relating to the Product to

be Purchased

When child respondents were asked to express their opinion on the statement that every

family member has his/her ideas relating to the product to be purchased, it is found that majority

respondents agree with the statement.

Table 6.30

Every Family Member has His/Her Ideas Relating to the Product to be Purchased:



Bathinda 0.99 19.80 2

(0.80) 16

(6.40) 20

(8.00) 157

(62.80) 55

(22.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 1.05 15.06 9

(3.60) 14

(5.60) 183

(73.20) 44

(17.60) 250

(100)

Total 1.02 17.66 2

(0.40)

25

(5.00)

34

(6.80)

340

(68.00)

99

(19.80)

500

(100)

chi^2 = 8.23 (df : 4) c = 0.13; t = 0.948 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

Table 6.30 portrays that majority child respondents in both the cities agree to the statement as

84.80 percent Bathinda respondents and 90.80 percent Ludhiana respondents agree with the

statement. WAS is also significant in both the cities. However, co-efficient of variation shows more

variation in the responses of Bathinda respondents as value of CV is 19.80 percent as compared to

261

Ludhiana where CV is 15.06 percent. Insignificant value of chi-square and t-test show the negative

association of respondents, in both the cities.

Table 6.31




Bathinda

Male 0.83 21.93 2

(1.32) 14

(9.27) 15

(9.93) 97

(64.24) 23

(15.23) 151

(100)

Female 1.23 14.89 2

(2.02) 5

(5.05) 60

(60.61) 32

(32.32) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 1.05 15.80 5

(4.27) 6

(5.13) 84

(71.79) 22

(18.80) 117

(100)

Female 1.05 14.57 4

(3.01) 8

(6.02) 99

(74.44) 22

(16.54) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.93 19.59 2

(0.75) 19

(7.09) 21

(7.84) 181

(67.54) 45

(16.79) 268

(100)

Female 1.12 14.77 6

(2.59) 13

(5.60) 159

(68.53) 54

(23.28) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 16.07** (df : 4) C = 0.25; t = 4.321** (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 0.60 (df : 3) C = 0.05; t = 0.079 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 10.35* (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 3.226** (df : 498)


Overall WAS 0.93 for male respondents and 1.12 for female respondents signifying that both

the male and female respondents agree to the statement in majority. However, 1.23 WAS for female

respondents of Bathinda shows that they agree to the statement more as compared to male

respondents of this city, whereas, 1.05 WAS for both male and female respondents in Ludhiana city

explains that they equally agree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows that the female

respondents in both the cities are more consistent in their responses as compared to their male

counterparts. Statistical value of chi-square and t-test for Bathinda and total number of respondents

explain that the respondents of different genders have different opinions regarding the statement. Co-

efficient of contingency (0.25) also witnesses good deal of association among the male and female

respondents of Bathinda but insignificant value of chi-square and t-test for Ludhiana in Table 6.31

shows that the gender of a respondent does not have any significant impact on his/her opinion.

262

Table 6.32




Bathinda

Up to 10 1.00 20.00 4

(8.00) 4

(8.00) 30

(60.00) 12

(24.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.88 22.16 1

(0.99) 9

(8.91) 11

(10.89) 60

(59.41) 20

(19.80) 101

(100)

Above 13 1.09 17.11 1

(1.01) 3

(3.03) 5

(5.05) 67

(67.68) 23

(23.23) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.92 18.11 4

(7.84) 3

(5.88) 37

(72.55) 7

(13.73) 51

(100)

10 - 13 1.08 15.69 4

(3.92) 5

(4.90) 72

(70.59) 21

(20.59) 102

(100)

Above 13 1.08 12.50 1

(1.03) 6

(6.19) 74

(76.29) 16

(16.49) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.96 19.19 8

(7.92) 7

(6.93) 67

(66.34) 19

(18.81) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.98 19.10 1

(0.49) 13

(6.40) 16

(7.88) 132

(65.02) 41

(20.20) 203

(100)

Above 13 1.09 14.91 1

(0.51)

4

(2.04)

11

(5.61)

141

(71.94)

39

(19.90)

196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 6.59 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 1.76 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 5.76 (df : 6) C = 0.15; F = 1.37 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Age) Chi^2 = 8.04 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 1.54 (df : 2, 497)


WAS (1.09) for Bathinda respondents and (1.08) for Ludhiana respondents from the age

group of above 13 years show that 90.91 percent Bathinda respondents and 91.18 percent Ludhiana

respondents agree to the statement (Table 6.32). Co-efficient of variation also shows that

respondents of this age group are more consistent in their responses in both the cities. Though WAS

shows a very high value for respondents of all age groups in both the cities, but insignificant value of

chi-square and F-test explain that the respondents‟ perception do not vary with age. Co-efficient of

contingency 0.16 for Bathinda respondents and 0.15 for Ludhiana respondents shows a good deal of

association among the respondents of different ages.

263

Table 6.33




Bathinda

Up to 5th 1.00 23.25 2

(14.29)

8 (57.14)

4 (28.57)

14 (100)

5th – 8th 0.92 20.92 1

(0.69) 11

(7.64) 16

(11.11) 87

(60.42) 29

(20.14) 144

(100)

Above 8th 1.10 17.32 1

(1.09) 3

(3.26) 4

(4.35) 62

(67.39) 22

(23.91) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.88 17.53 3

(7.50) 3

(7.50) 30

(75.00) 4

(10.00) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 1.04 15.35 6

(4.26) 6

(4.26) 105

(74.47) 24

(17.02) 141

(100)

Above 8th 1.16 12.74 5

(7.25) 48

(69.57) 16

(23.19) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.91 19.18 5

(9.26) 3

(5.56) 38

(70.37) 8

(14.81) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.98 18.34 1

(0.35) 17

(5.96) 22

(7.72) 192

(67.37) 53

(18.60) 285

(100)

Above 8th 1.12 15.53 1

(0.62)

3

(1.86)

9

(5.59)

110

(68.32)

38

(23.60)

161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child) Chi^2 = 8.91 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 1.47 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child) Chi^2 = 8.13 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 2.78* (df : 2, 247) Total (Child) Chi^2 = 9.04 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 2.92 (df : 2, 497)



Respondents studying in different classes agree that while purchasing a product every family

member has his/her ideas relating to the product to be purchased. Table 6.33 is self explanatory in

the concerned aspect where majority of the respondents studying in above 8th class agree with the

statement. WAS 1.10 for Bathinda respondents and 1.16 for Ludhiana respondents also signifies it.

Statistically insignificant values of chi-square and F-test conclude acceptance of null hypothesis

which means that all the respondents have almost similar opinion irrespective of their class. But

Ludhiana respondents‟ perception significantly varies with class (deduced from significant value of

F-test). Co-efficient of variation also shows that respondents studying in above 8th class show more

264

consistency in their responses as value of CV is less for 8th class as compared to the respondents of

other classes.

Table 6.34




Bathinda

Nil 1.02 21.14 1

(1.20) 5

(6.02) 8

(9.64) 46

(55.42) 23

(27.71) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.93 19.85 7

(9.21) 5

(6.58) 50

(65.79) 14

(18.42) 76

(100)

Above 100 1.00 18.50 1

(1.10) 4

(4.40) 7

(7.69) 61

(67.03) 18

(19.78) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.98 16.08 1

(2.17) 7

(15.22) 30

(65.22) 8

(17.39) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.95 15.19 5

(5.10) 5

(5.10) 78

(79.59) 10

(10.20) 98

(100)

Above 100 1.17 14.15 3

(2.83) 2

(1.89) 75

(70.75) 26

(24.53) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 1.01 19.45 1

(0.78) 6

(4.65) 15

(11.63) 76

(58.91) 31

(24.03) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.94 17.26 12

(6.90) 10

(5.75) 128

(73.56) 24

(13.79) 174

(100)

Above 100 1.09 16.38 1

(0.51) 7

(3.55) 9

(4.57) 136

(69.04) 44

(22.34) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 5.85 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 0.27 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 18.27** (df : 6) C = 0.26; F = 3.76* (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 16.83* (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 2.06 (df : 2, 497)


Table 6.34 represents monthly pocket money wise analysis of child respondents which also

reflects the similar picture as shown by the previous tables. WAS is significant in all the cases but it

is the highest in case of Bathinda respondents (1.02) getting no pocket money and in Ludhiana

respondents (1.17) getting pocket money above Rs. 100 who agree with the statement in majority.

However, co-efficient of variation in both the cities show that the respondents getting no pocket

money have much variation in their responses as compared to other respondents getting pocket

money up to Rs. 100 or more than Rs. 100. Statistical value of chi-square is significant only in case

of Ludhiana respondents and total number of respondents which means that the respondents‟

265

perception does not appeal equally to his/her pocket money where these are almost similar in case of

Bathinda respondents and a few variations are due to the sample fluctuations.


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that the age of a respondent does not affect

his/her perception in both the cities, whereas, gender significantly influence the opinion of Bathinda

respondents and the class and monthly pocket money of respondent changes his/her perception in

Ludhiana city.

6.2.6 Child Being an Important Member of the Family has a Right to Initiate and Influence the

Purchase Decision

Majority of the child respondents agree that being an important member of the family they

have the right to initiate and influence their parents and sometimes they have a right to decide

something regarding the purchase decision.

Table 6.35

Child has a Right to Initiate and Influence the Purchase Decision:



Bathinda 0.46 29.19 14

(5.60) 29

(11.60) 61

(24.40) 121

(48.40) 25

(10.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.51 26.50 6

(2.40) 39

(15.60) 48

(19.20) 136

(54.40) 21

(8.40) 250

(100)

Total 0.48 27.87 20

(4.00)

68

(13.60)

109

(21.80)

257

(51.40)

46

(9.20)

500

(100)

chi^2 = 7.44 (df : 4) c = 0.12; t = 0.598 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

Table 6.35 demonstrates that 58.40 percent Bathinda respondents and 62.80 percent

Ludhiana respondents agree that they have the right to initiate and influence the purchase decision of

their family. 0.46 WAS of Bathinda and 0.51 WAS of Ludhiana also signifies it. Co-efficient of

variation shows that Ludhiana respondents are more consistent in their responses as value of CV is

266

26.50 percent as compared to Bathinda respondents i.e., 29.19 percent, but insignificant value of chi-

square, t-test and co-efficient of contingency explains negative association of respondents of

Bathinda and Ludhiana.

Table 6.36




Bathinda

Male 0.40 28.82 8

(5.30) 17

(11.26) 46

(30.46) 66

(43.71) 14

(9.27) 151

(100)

Female 0.54 29.38 6

(6.06) 12

(12.12) 15

(15.15) 55

(55.56) 11

(11.11) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.50 24.29 3

(2.56) 16

(13.68) 20

(17.09) 75

(64.10) 3

(2.56) 117

(100)

Female 0.51 28.49 3

(2.26) 23

(17.29) 28

(21.05) 61

(45.86) 18

(13.53) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.45 26.96 11

(4.10) 33

(12.31) 66

(24.63) 141

(52.61) 17

(6.34) 268

(100)

Female 0.52 28.98 9

(3.88) 35

(15.09) 43

(18.53) 116

(50.00) 29

(12.50) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 7.78 (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 0.999 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 13.78** (df : 4) C = 0.23; t = 0.060 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 8.12 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.841 (df : 498)


Female respondents agree more as compared to the male respondents that they have right to

initiate and influence the purchase decision of their parents. Same is the picture in Table 6.36 where

66.67 percent female respondents of Bathinda and 59.39 percent of Ludhiana agree with the

statement. However, co-efficient of variation shows that they have more variation in their responses.

It is imperative to note that WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases except the male respondents of

Bathinda which shows WAS of 0.40. Statistical value of t-test explains similar opinion of

respondents of different gender in both the cities but significant value of chi-square for Ludhiana

respondents explain that the gender has a significant influence on their perception. Co-efficient of

267

contingency 0.23 also signifies a high level of association among the perception of respondents of

different gender.

Table 6.37




Bathinda

Up to 10 0.36 27.68 2

(4.00) 8

(16.00) 12

(24.00) 26

(52.00) 2

(4.00) 50

(100)

10 – 13 0.37 32.94 9

(8.91) 10

(9.90) 30

(29.70) 39

(38.61) 13

(12.87) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.60 25.56 3

(3.03) 11

(11.11) 19

(19.19) 56

(56.57) 10

(10.10) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.47 29.39 3

(5.88) 8

(15.69) 5

(9.80) 32

(62.75) 3

(5.88) 51

(100)

10 – 13 0.50 26.57 2

(1.96) 15

(14.71) 25

(24.51) 50

(49.02) 10

(9.80) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.54 25.42 1

(1.03)

16

(16.49)

18

(18.56)

54

(55.67)

8

(8.25)

97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.42 28.65 5

(4.95) 16

(15.84) 17

(16.83) 58

(57.43) 5

(4.95) 101

(100)

10 – 13 0.43 29.74 11

(5.42) 25

(12.32) 55

(27.09) 89

(43.84) 23

(11.33) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.57 25.49 4

(2.04)

27

(13.78)

37

(18.88)

110

(56.12)

18

(9.18)

196

(100)



Among all the age groups 66.67 percent Bathinda respondents and 63.92 percent Ludhiana

respondents of above 13 years agree more to the statement as WAS is 0.60 for Bathinda respondents

and 0.54 for Ludhiana respondents. However, coefficient of variation shows that Bathinda

respondents of 10 – 13 years and Ludhiana respondents from the age group of up to 10 years have

the maximum variation in their responses. Insignificant value of chi-square and F-test from Table

6.37 concludes that the respondents of different age groups from Bathinda and Ludhiana have

similar opinion regarding the statement. Co-efficient of contingency 0.22 shows a good deal of

association among the respondents of Bathinda.

268

Table 6.38




Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.50 30.00 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 1

(7.14) 9

(64.29) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.34 31.44 11

(7.64) 16

(11.11) 44

(30.56) 59

(40.97) 14

(9.72) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.63 25.07 2

(2.17) 11

(11.96) 16

(17.39) 53

(57.61) 10

(10.87) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.53 28.90 2

(5.00) 7

(17.50) 2

(5.00) 26

(65.00) 3

(7.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.45 26.38 3

(2.13) 22

(15.60) 34

(24.11) 72

(51.06) 10

(7.09) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.61 25.48 1

(1.45) 10

(14.49) 12

(17.39) 38

(55.07) 8

(11.59) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.52 29.26 3

(5.56) 9

(16.67) 3

(5.56) 35

(64.81) 4

(7.41) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.40 28.82 14

(4.91) 38

(13.33) 78

(27.37) 131

(45.96) 24

(8.42) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.62 25.14 3

(1.86)

21

(13.04)

28

(17.39)

91

(56.52)

18

(11.18)

161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 13.16 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 2.36 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 9.95 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 0.64 (df : 2, 247) Total (Class) Chi^2 = 20.62** (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 2.80 (df : 2, 497)


Class wise analysis of child respondents also depicts the similar picture where 0.63 WAS for

Bathinda respondents and 0.61 WAS for Ludhiana respondents explain that the respondents of above

8th class agree to the statement in majority. It is important to note that 17.39 percent respondents

from above 8th class in both the cities are those who show indifferent attitude and 14.13 percent

Bathinda respondents and 15.94 percent Ludhiana respondents disagree with the statement. Table

6.38 reflects a low level of WAS for respondents studying in class 5th-8th which demonstrates that

respondents from this class do not agree to the desired extent though insignificant value of chi-

square and F-test in both the cities explain that the respondents‟ opinion does not vary with respect

269

to their class but significant value of chi-square for total respondents describes a significant

influence of class on his/her opinion.

Table 6.39




Bathinda

Nil 0.47 29.11 5

(6.02) 9

(10.84) 19

(22.89) 42

(50.60) 8

(9.64) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.36 31.55 5

(6.58) 11

(14.47) 20

(26.32) 32

(42.11) 8

(10.53) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.53 26.91 4

(4.40) 9

(9.89) 22

(24.18) 47

(51.65) 9

(9.89) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.54 24.86 1

(2.17) 5

(10.87) 12

(26.09) 24

(52.17) 4

(8.70) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.40 27.65 2

(2.04) 21

(21.43) 16

(16.33) 54

(55.10) 5

(5.10) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.59 26.18 3

(2.83) 13

(12.26) 20

(18.87) 58

(54.72) 12

(11.32) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.50 27.71 6

(4.65) 14

(10.85) 31

(24.03) 66

(51.16) 12

(9.30) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.38 29.59 7

(4.02) 32

(18.39) 36

(20.69) 86

(49.43) 13

(7.47) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.56 26.69 7

(3.55) 22

(11.17) 42

(21.32) 105

(53.30) 21

(10.66) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 2.33 (df : 8) C = 0.10; F = 0.61 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 7.66 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.16 (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 6.45 (df : 8) C = 0.11; F = 1.68 (df : 2, 497)


WAS 0.53 for Bathinda respondents and 0.59 for Ludhiana respondents getting pocket

money above Rs. 100 agree to the statement in majority (Table 6.39). However, co-efficient of

variation shows the highest value of 31.55 percent for Bathinda respondents and 27.65 percent for

Ludhiana respondents getting pocket money up to Rs. 100 has the maximum variation in their

responses. Statistical values of chi-square and F-test result acceptance of null hypothesis which

means that the respondents‟ perception seems to be similar with respect to their monthly pocket

money.

270


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that the gender has a significant influence on

the opinion of respondents of Ludhiana whereas, the entire other variables insignificantly influence

the perception of respondents in both the cities.

6.3 Conclusion

It becomes obvious from the foregoing discussion that there is a shift in the household

buying structure. Traditionally, the father used to dominate the decisions and in major buying

decisions, he was supposed to consult his wife only. With the passage of time and change in

circumstances these traditional domains became blurred as working wives gained more influence in

the household buying decisions but today, children exert more influence in household buying

decisions. This shift in changed buying roles has occurred due to increase in single parent household

who often push their children towards household participation or increase in dual income families

who have more disposable income, lesser time with family and guilt for not spending enough time

with their kids, which permit their children to make a greater number of choices. Parents teach

children how to be effective consumers and influence their brand preferences. So, it can be

concluded that the traditional household buying structure has undergone a sea change. Now children

are emerging as strong influencing members of household buying decisions. They not only influence

their parents to buy certain kind of products but they are also the – present and future consumers.

REDEFINING THE BUYING ROLES IN HOUSEHOLD SECTOR 6.1...

Documents

Transcript of REDEFINING THE BUYING ROLES IN HOUSEHOLD SECTOR 6.1...