CHAPTER – IV

FINANCIAL DECISION-MAKING: AN ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction

This chapter reports the analysis and interpretation of data following

the objectives of the study. Analysis of data is a process of inspecting,
cleaning, transforming, and modeling data with the goal of highlighting useful
information, suggesting conclusions, and supporting decision making where
data is defined as pieces of numerical information or observations collected
into a set. Data can be displayed in tables, bar diagrams, or as sets of ordered
pairs. This chapter explores data analysis and interpretation. It explains the
profile of the women employees working in banking, education and corporate
sector. It identifies the relationship between income levels and awareness of
investment avenues. The risk bearing capacity and financial decision-making
of women is also examined. Further the correlation between financ ial literacy
and fiscal decision-making was done to test the hypothesis. Comparison of
women between the advanced districts and backward districts is also taken
into account. The significance of risk aversion and confidence level of men
and women is also interpreted. Influence of demographics on all the aspects
of decision-making are recorded.

4.2 Statistical tools applied

To achieve the objectives the following statistical tools were applied

namely T-Test and Linear regression, ANOVA and correlation.

4.3 Respondents profile

This section discusses the general profile of the respondents. These

questions were asked from the respondents in the form of the questionnaire
and the respondents answer these questions on the bases of which these tables
have been derived.
1
 Table 4.1 shows the first of geographic region of respondents to which
they belong. The researcher has collected data for 300 women and 300 men
from the advanced and backward districts of Malwa area of Punjab to
compare the financial autonomy of men against women.

Table 4.1
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of habitation
Geographic Region Frequency Percentage (%)
Backward 300 50
Advanced 300 50
Total 600 100
Source: Primary survey (2016).

350
300 300
300

250
Frequency

200

150

100

50

0
Backward Advanced
Geographic Region

The next table 4.2 shows the age profile of the respondents. Age is one
of the important demographic factor. Mental capacity, analytical ability and
judgement can be depicted from the age of a person. As seen from the table
151 respondents were below the age of 30, whereas maximum respondents i.e.
291 belong to the age of 30 to 45 and that constitutes 48.5 percent of total
respondents. 158 out of 300 respondents belong to the age of above 45 years.

2
Now age is very significant factor in decision making. With increasing age,
the risk taking capability of an individual keep reducing and the investment
avenues for such respondents are less. Most of our respondents were from a
middle age group which can take risk also and parallel have knowledge of
market as well as financial environment too.

Table 4.2
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of age profile
Age Profile (Years) Frequency Percentage (%)
<30 151 25.16
30-45 291 48.50
>45 158 26.34
Total 600 100
Source: Same as Table 4.1

350
291
300

250
No. of Respondents

200
151 158
150

100

50

0
Below 30 years □ 30-45 years □ Above 45 years □
AGE in Years

The table 4.3 highlights the education profile of the respondents'

profile. Education is a vital aspect in the holistic development of any nation
and its people. It develops the human development index of the country. It
imbibes confidence, gives exposure and enhances acumen.11.67 percent of

3
the respondents were found to be only secondary passed where as 129 of them
were found to be higher secondary. These were mostly men and women who
are working as peons and helpers in bank schools or colleges. 352 out of 600
respondents were graduates and 8.17 percent were post graduates. Education
has a very positive effect on the financial autonomy and financial
independence.

Table 4.3
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of education level
S. No. Education Level Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Secondary 70 11.67
2 Higher secondary 129 21.50
3 Graduate 352 58.66
4 Post Graduate 49 8.17
Total 600 100
Source: Same as Table 4.1
400
352
350

300
No. of Respondents

250

200

150 129

100 70
49
50

0
Secondary Higher secondary Graduate Post Graduate
Education Level

The table 4.4 focuses on the income profile of the respondents.

Income plays a significant role in determining the decision -making capacity
of an individual. It is quite obvious that more the income more will be the
4
disposable income of the individual to invest. As seen from the Bar Graph
227 out of 600 respondents were from the lowest strata i.e. below 10000. The
highest number of respondents, i.e. 236 belongs to income group of 236,
which means that average income of the respondents varies from 10,000 to
25,000. This also means that since most of the respondents did not have a
high income the trend towards investment other than that in gold that too in
the form of jewellery, is very less. The respondents in the income group of
50000-100000 constituted only 5.66 percent.Only2.16 percent respondents
have income higher than one lack per month.

Table 4.4
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of income level
S. No. Monthly Income (Rs.) Frequency Percentage (%)
1 Below 10000 227 37.84
2 10000-25000 236 39.34
3 25000- 50000 90 15.00
4 50000-100000 34 5.66
5 Above 100000 13 2.16
Source: Same as Table 4.1
250 236
227

200
No. of Respondents

150

100 90

50 34
13
0
Below 10000 10000-25000 25000- 50000 50000-100000 Above 100000
Monthly income

5
 The table 4.5 depicts the marital status of respondents. Out of 600
respondents 388 almost two third were married and 176 that is 24.34 percent
were single. There were 36 divorce cases of the respondents marital status is a
significant factor which influences the investment pattern and financial
autonomy of an individual. The married ladies are not only responsible for
domestic work but has broader edge on the financial front of the house.

Table 4.5
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of marital status
Marital Status Frequency Percentage (%)
Single 176 29.34
Married 388 64.66
Divorce 36 6.00
Total 600 100
Source: Same as Table 4.1

450
388
400
350
No. of Respondents

300
250
200 176
150
100
50 36

0
Single Married Divorce
Marital Status

The table 4.6 highlights the professional knowledge of the respondents.

Financial literacy judges the financial decision-making of the persons. 122
out of the sample selected have formally undertaken a course on Finance
6
Management or Investment. Most of them were the bank employees only. For
all education on investment is also very helpful in being financially
independent. Table 4.6 since more than two third respondents have not
undertaken any course on finance or investment it is difficult for them to
understand various opportunities and risks associated.

Table 4.6
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of professional knowledge
about investment
Attended course Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 122 20.33
No 478 79.67
Total 600 100
Source: Same as Table 4.1

600

500 478
No. of Respondents

400

300

200
122
100

0
Yes No
Attending training on Finance Management or Investment

Bar Graph 4.7 shows the profile of the respondents having bank
account. Most of the respondents were having bank account i.e. 520 out of
600 have bank accounts. 13.34 percent respondents were not having bank

7
account. One of the reasons for same is that Government had made it
compulsory for all public and private organization to pay salaries to the
employees through bank account only. It is in fact a positive signal for the
study because at least these respondents are financially inclusive.

Table 4.7
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of having bank account
Having bank account Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 520 86.66
No 80 13.44
Total 600 100
Source: Same as Table 4.1

600
520
500
No. of Respondents

400

300

200

100 80

0
Yes No
Having Bank Account

The table 4.8 shows profile of the respondents having D mat Account
or not. Out of 600 respondents almost 222 i.e. more than one third are having
Dematerialized account. In India it is compulsory to have a D -mat Account if
an individual is interested in investments into stocks. This shows the interest
of individuals towards the stock market securities. It was found that only

8
those respondents working in banks were having D-mat account, which
basically means 63 percent of the respondents were not investing into stocks.

Table 4.8
Distribution of the respondents on the basis of D-mat Account
Having D-mat account Frequency Percentage (%)
Yes 222 37.00
No 378 63.00
Total 600 100
Source: Same as Table 4.1

400 378

350
300
No of Candidates

250 222
200
150
100
50
0
Yes No
Having D- mat account

4.4 Correlation Analysis

The table 4.9below shows the correlation matrix between the various
items of the study. In correlation analysis, we estimate a sample correlation
coefficient, more specifically the Pearson Product Moment correlation
coefficient. The sample correlation coefficient, denoted r, ranges between -1
and +1 and quantifies the direction and strength of the linear
association between the two variables. The correlation between two variables
can be positive (i.e., higher levels of one variable are associated with higher

9
levels of the other) or negative (i.e., higher levels of one variable are
associated with lower levels of the other).

There is a statistically significant correlation found between various

items. There is a high level of correlation of the order of 0.76 and
0.81respectively between the respondents who are serious about investment
and investment in share market as well as investment in gold. Which simply
means that investment is stock market is the first option among women
investors as far as investment is concerned. Similarly there is a significant
level of relationship between self-interest and challenges in job (0.62)
economic independence (.68) and technical skills required. Respondents
believe that challenging job and economic independent are two very important
factors.

Another relationship is between taking decision on their own and items

like challenges in job, economic independence and using technical
knowledge. The correlation between self-decision making and challenges in
job was found to be (0.63), self-decision making and economic independence
(0.67) and self-decision making using technical knowledge (0.66) which are
statistically significant. This also indicates that the direction of research and
selection of variables is justified.

10
 Table 4.9
Correlation analysis of various items
V1 V2 V3 V4 V5 V6 V7 V8 V9 V10 V11 V12 V13 V14 V15 V16 V17 V18 V19 V20 V21 V22 V23 V24 V25 V26 V27 V28 V29 V30 V31 V32 V33 V34 V35 V36 V37 V38 V39 V40 V41

V1 1 -.614 -.614 -.614 .278 .092 -.353 .110 -.458 -.015 .130 .084 .070 .139 .529 -.058 -.130 -.032 .235 .235 .165 .165 .165 .014 .165 .165 .165 .165 .206 .165 .165 .165 .119 .206 .165 .165 -.088 -.070 -.070 -.070 -.024

V2 -.614 1 1.000 1.000 .411 -.155 .033 .427 .267 -.163 -.329 .024 .235 .293 -.639 .098 .329 -.106 -.119 -.119 -.028 -.028 -.028 .229 -.028 -.028 -.028 -.028 -.019 -.028 .056 -.028 .054 -.019 .056 .056 .298 .469 .469 .469 .224

V3 -.614 1.000 1 1.000 .411 -.155 .033 .427 .267 -.163 -.329 .024 .235 .293 -.639 .098 .329 -.106 -.119 -.119 -.028 -.028 -.028 .229 -.028 -.028 -.028 -.028 -.019 -.028 .056 -.028 .054 -.019 .056 .056 .298 .469 .469 .469 .224

V4 -.614 1.000 1.000 1 .411 -.155 .033 .427 .267 -.163 -.329 .024 .235 .293 -.639 .098 .329 -.106 -.119 -.119 -.028 -.028 -.028 .229 -.028 -.028 -.028 -.028 -.019 -.028 .056 -.028 .054 -.019 .056 .056 .298 .469 .469 .469 .224

V5 .278 .411 .411 .411 1 -.094 .000 .632 .145 .152 .000 .230 .571 .714 .117 .060 .000 .130 .290 .290 .339 .339 .339 .469 .339 .339 .339 .339 .376 .339 .441 .339 .413 .376 .441 .441 .272 .500 .500 .500 .397

V6 .092 -.155 -.155 -.155 -.094 1 -.213 -.239 -.191 -.282 .354 -.608 -.378 -.189 .155 .553 -.354 -.214 -.255 -.255 -.494 -.494 -.494 -.078 -.494 -.494 -.494 -.494 -.497 -.494 -.494 -.494 -.496 -.497 -.494 -.494 -.480 .378 .378 .378 -.460

V7 -.353 .033 .033 .033 .000 -.213 1 -.153 .680 .790 .302 .453 .483 .000 .298 -.405 -.302 .804 .617 .617 .536 .536 .536 .695 .536 .536 .536 .536 .548 .536 .536 .536 .529 .548 .536 .536 .341 -.161 -.161 -.161 .616

V8 .110 .427 .427 .427 .632 -.239 -.153 1 -.137 -.019 -.507 .327 .361 .723 -.315 -.302 .507 -.041 .183 .183 .343 .343 .343 .130 .343 .343 .343 .343 .327 .343 .343 .343 .368 .327 .343 .343 .115 .452 .452 .452 .345

V9 -.458 .267 .267 .267 .145 -.191 .680 -.137 1 .709 .090 .484 .578 .289 -.089 -.363 -.090 .656 .488 .488 .550 .550 .550 .624 .550 .550 .550 .550 .555 .550 .618 .550 .627 .555 .618 .618 .123 .000 .000 .000 .452

V10 -.015 -.163 -.163 -.163 .152 -.282 .790 -.019 .709 1 .228 .612 .792 .396 .388 -.586 -.228 .967 .905 .905 .796 .796 .796 .763 .796 .796 .796 .796 .782 .796 .753 .796 .776 .782 .753 .753 .310 -.061 -.061 -.061 .677

V11 .130 -.329 -.329 -.329 .000 .354 .302 -.507 .090 .228 1 -.358 .000 -.267 .768 .224 -1.000 .243 .120 .120 -.254 -.254 -.254 .329 -.254 -.254 -.254 -.254 -.176 -.254 -.127 -.254 -.211 -.176 -.127 -.127 .000 .000 .000 .000 .186

V12 .084 .024 .024 .024 .230 -.608 .453 .327 .484 .612 -.358 1 .689 .459 -.165 -.673 .358 .625 .647 .647 .764 .764 .764 .495 .764 .764 .764 .764 .793 .764 .764 .764 .739 .793 .764 .764 .487 -.230 -.230 -.230 .439

V13 .070 .235 .235 .235 .571 -.378 .483 .361 .578 .792 .000 .689 1 .714 .117 -.478 .000 .810 .869 .869 .747 .747 .747 .821 .747 .747 .747 .747 .752 .747 .747 .747 .750 .752 .747 .747 .545 .286 .286 .286 .695

V14 .139 .293 .293 .293 .714 -.189 .000 .723 .289 .396 -.267 .459 .714 1 -.117 -.239 .267 .357 .483 .483 .577 .577 .577 .411 .577 .577 .577 .577 .564 .577 .577 .577 .600 .564 .577 .577 .272 .357 .357 .357 .347

V15 .529 -.639 -.639 -.639 .117 .155 .298 -.315 -.089 .388 .768 -.165 .117 -.117 1 .049 -.768 .346 .357 .357 .112 .112 .112 .277 .112 .112 .112 .112 .135 .112 .112 .112 .085 .135 .112 .112 .000 -.117 -.117 -.117 .265

V16 -.058 .098 .098 .098 .060 .553 -.405 -.302 -.363 -.586 .224 -.673 -.478 -.239 .049 1 -.224 -.515 -.646 -.646 -.710 -.710 -.710 -.393 -.710 -.710 -.710 -.710 -.708 -.710 -.710 -.710 -.722 -.708 -.710 -.710 .000 .120 .120 .120 -.706

V17 -.130 .329 .329 .329 .000 -.354 -.302 .507 -.090 -.228 -1.000 .358 .000 .267 -.768 -.224 1 -.243 -.120 -.120 .254 .254 .254 -.329 .254 .254 .254 .254 .176 .254 .127 .254 .211 .176 .127 .127 .000 .000 .000 .000 -.186

V18 -.032 -.106 -.106 -.106 .130 -.214 .804 -.041 .656 .967 .243 .625 .810 .357 .346 -.515 -.243 1 .920 .920 .724 .724 .724 .825 .724 .724 .724 .724 .725 .724 .678 .724 .681 .725 .678 .678 .453 -.032 -.032 -.032 .631

V19 .235 -.119 -.119 -.119 .290 -.255 .617 .183 .488 .905 .120 .647 .869 .483 .357 -.646 -.120 .920 1 1.000 .826 .826 .826 .832 .826 .826 .826 .826 .826 .826 .780 .826 .786 .826 .780 .780 .368 .097 .097 .097 .738

V20 .235 -.119 -.119 -.119 .290 -.255 .617 .183 .488 .905 .120 .647 .869 .483 .357 -.646 -.120 .920 1.000 1 .826 .826 .826 .832 .826 .826 .826 .826 .826 .826 .780 .826 .786 .826 .780 .780 .368 .097 .097 .097 .738

V21 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1 1.000 1.000 .613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

11
V22 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1 1.000 .613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V23 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1 .613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V24 .014 .229 .229 .229 .469 -.078 .695 .130 .624 .763 .329 .495 .821 .411 .277 -.393 -.329 .825 .832 .832 .613 .613 .613 1 .613 .613 .613 .613 .676 .613 .697 .613 .639 .676 .697 .697 .447 .235 .235 .235 .754

V25 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1.000 .613 1 1.000 1.000 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V26 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1.000 .613 1.000 1 1.000 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V27 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1.000 .613 1.000 1.000 1 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V28 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1.000 .613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1 .983 1.000 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V29 .206 -.019 -.019 -.019 .376 -.497 .548 .327 .555 .782 -.176 .793 .752 .564 .135 -.708 .176 .725 .826 .826 .983 .983 .983 .676 .983 .983 .983 .983 1 .983 .983 .983 .975 1.000 .983 .983 .319 -.188 -.188 -.188 .686

V30 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1.000 .613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .983 1 .952 1.000 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V31 .165 .056 .056 .056 .441 -.494 .536 .343 .618 .753 -.127 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .127 .678 .780 .780 .952 .952 .952 .697 .952 .952 .952 .952 .983 .952 1 .952 .981 .983 1.000 1.000 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .731

V32 .165 -.028 -.028 -.028 .339 -.494 .536 .343 .550 .796 -.254 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .254 .724 .826 .826 1.000 1.000 1.000 .613 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 .983 1.000 .952 1 .981 .983 .952 .952 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .660

V33 .119 .054 .054 .054 .413 -.496 .529 .368 .627 .776 -.211 .739 .750 .600 .085 -.722 .211 .681 .786 .786 .981 .981 .981 .639 .981 .981 .981 .981 .975 .981 .981 .981 1 .975 .981 .981 .191 -.075 -.075 -.075 .717

V34 .206 -.019 -.019 -.019 .376 -.497 .548 .327 .555 .782 -.176 .793 .752 .564 .135 -.708 .176 .725 .826 .826 .983 .983 .983 .676 .983 .983 .983 .983 1.000 .983 .983 .983 .975 1 .983 .983 .319 -.188 -.188 -.188 .686

V35 .165 .056 .056 .056 .441 -.494 .536 .343 .618 .753 -.127 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .127 .678 .780 .780 .952 .952 .952 .697 .952 .952 .952 .952 .983 .952 #### .952 .981 .983 1 1.000 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .731

V36 .165 .056 .056 .056 .441 -.494 .536 .343 .618 .753 -.127 .764 .747 .577 .112 -.710 .127 .678 .780 .780 .952 .952 .952 .697 .952 .952 .952 .952 .983 .952 #### .952 .981 .983 1.000 1 .259 -.136 -.136 -.136 .731

V37 -.088 .298 .298 .298 .272 -.480 .341 .115 .123 .310 .000 .487 .545 .272 .000 .000 .000 .453 .368 .368 .259 .259 .259 .447 .259 .259 .259 .259 .319 .259 .259 .259 .191 .319 .259 .259 1 -.182 -.182 -.182 .252

V38 -.070 .469 .469 .469 .500 .378 -.161 .452 .000 -.061 .000 -.230 .286 .357 -.117 .120 .000 -.032 .097 .097 -.136 -.136 -.136 .235 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.188 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.075 -.188 -.136 -.136 -.182 1 1.000 1.000 .199

V39 -.070 .469 .469 .469 .500 .378 -.161 .452 .000 -.061 .000 -.230 .286 .357 -.117 .120 .000 -.032 .097 .097 -.136 -.136 -.136 .235 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.188 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.075 -.188 -.136 -.136 -.182 1.000 1 1.000 .199

V40 -.070 .469 .469 .469 .500 .378 -.161 .452 .000 -.061 .000 -.230 .286 .357 -.117 .120 .000 -.032 .097 .097 -.136 -.136 -.136 .235 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.188 -.136 -.136 -.136 -.075 -.188 -.136 -.136 -.182 1.000 1.000 1 .199

V41 -.024 .224 .224 .224 .397 -.460 .616 .345 .452 .677 .186 .439 .695 .347 .265 -.706 -.186 .631 .738 .738 .660 .660 .660 .754 .660 .660 .660 .660 .686 .660 .731 .660 .717 .686 .731 .731 .252 .199 .199 .199 1

The next section will discuss the results of the analysis and hypothesis testing.

12
4.5 Hypothesis Testing

The following section will test the hypothesis of the study and will also discuss
the results of the tests as well as its interpretations. All tests were performed using
SPSS 16 i.e. Software package for social science version [Link] first hypothesis of the
study is as following:

H 01: There is no significant relationship between income levels and awareness of

investment avenues.

This hypothesis attempts to test the relationship between income levels and
awareness of investment avenues. The income of an individual has direct impact on the
selection of diverse avenues of investments. The relationship is established using linear
regression of income on awareness level of various investment avenues. The results are
positive and the model is able to explain 70 percent of the dependence of de pendent
variable i.e. number of investment avenues by independent variable income level of the
respondents. This means that 70 percent respondents become more aware about various
investment avenues if the income level rises. Increase in the income level gi ves more
confidence to women and they start looking for various different avenues of investment.
This leads to increase in their self confidence and financial autonomy. It also shrinks
the risk bearing capacity of women. The women of banking, corporate and education
sector falling in high income group are acquainted with variety of investing schemes.
The table mentioned below explains the relationship.

13
 Table 4.10
Model summery of Regression Test
Model Summary
Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Model R R Square
Square Estimate
1 .72 a .7043 .7004 1.30144
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income
Source: Primary survey conducted for this research (2016).

Table 4.11 shows the calculated values of Analysis of Variance with 399 degrees
of freedom and level of significance to be 95. The p value is .01 which is not
significant, thus rejecting the null hypothesis .This proves that there is significant
relationship between income levels and awareness of investment avenues.

Table 4.11
Results of Analysis of Variance
ANOVA b
Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression .061 1 .061 .010 .922 a
Residual 1012.857 398 1.694
Total 1012.873 399
a. Predictors: (Constant), Income
b. Dependent Variable: Awareness
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

The table 4.12 shows the coefficients of the regression equation and the values
are significant.

14
 Table 4.12
Value of Coefficients
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 3.607 .175 20.613 .000
Income .006 .063 .004 .098 .922
a. Dependent Variable: Awareness
b. Source: Primary Survey (2016).

Thus it can be said that Hypothesis 1 is rejected and that there is a significant
relationship between income levels of the respondents of advanced and backward
districts women of Malwa region of Punjab and the awareness of investment avenues to
them. With more income the level of disposable income avail able for investments rise
and this lead to opening up of various avenues of investment.

H 02 : There is no significant relationship between risk bearing capacity and

financial decision making by women.

In this hypothesis we test the relationship between risk bearing capacity and
financial decision making by women. Women runs away from risk and it is generally
seen that they prefer low risk bearing investments. The risk taking ability has clear link
with age, income, employment, marital status and knowledge about finance. As the age
of women increases the risk taking capacity of women reduces. The married women
courage's to accept risky funds as compare to single ones .Corporate and banking
profession women of advance region with high income and knowledge o f finance dare
to put money in stock market but the situation is reverse in backward cities wher e
women are not comfortable in making financial decisions. The relationship is
established using linear regression between risk bearing capacity on financial decision
making by women. The results are positive and the model is able to explain 54 percent
of the variance. This means that there is a positive and significant relationship between
risk bearing capacity and financial decision making by women. The sample for this was

15
300 only as this test was conducted on women respondents only. The table 4.13 shows
the Model Summary of Regression model.

Table 4.13
Model Summary of Regression model
Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R
Square Square Estimate
1 .641 a .56 .54 .33059
a. Predictors: (Constant), Risk
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

The table 4.14 below shows the values of Analysis of Variance on the samples.
The test is significant and is conducted at 5percent level of significance. The degree of
freedom for the ANOVA test was 298.

Table 4.14
Table showing results of Analysis of Variance
ANOVA b

Sum of Mean
Model df F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression 8.601 1 8.601 78.699 .000 a
Residual 65.357 298 .109
Total 73.958 299
a. Predictors: (Constant), Risk
b. Dependent Variable: Investment
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

The Table 4.15 below shows the Coefficients of regression analysis the test is
positive and significant and shows that there is a strong and significant relatio nship
between risk bearing capacity and financial decision making by women. Thus it can be
said that Hypothesis 2 is rejected because there is a relationship between risk bearing
capacity and financial decision making by women.
Table 4.15

16
 Table showing coefficients of Regression analysis
Coefficients a

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.550 .113 22.647 .000
Risk .243 .027 .341 8.871 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Investment
b. Source: Primary Survey(2016).

H 03 : There is no significant difference between financial decision making among

women of advanced and backward belt of the region.

In this section we test the relationship between financial decision making among
women of advanced and backward belt of the region. The comparison of women mainly
depends upon the education, income and financial literacy and employment of the
respondents. The relationship is established using independent T -statistical test. The
results of the test in this case are also significant and satisfy the boundary conditions.
The difference between the mean values of women who belong to geographically
advance areas is 3.33 is higher as compared to that of backward areas where the mean
value is 2.66. There is a significant difference in the financial decision making among
women of advanced and backward belt of the region. The values of the T - test can be
seen from the table number 4.16 given below.

17
 Table 4.16 Table showing
Group Statistics

Std. Std. Error

Region N Mean
Deviation Mean
Confidence 1.00 300 3.3333 1.37666 .07948
2.00 300 2.6667 1.49320 .08621

Levene's Test
for Equality t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
95% Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error Interval of the
F Sig. t Df
tailed) Difference Difference Difference
Lower Upper
Equal
variances 4.397 .036 5.685 298 .000 .66667 .11726 .43638 .89696
assumed
Equal
variances
5.685 294.094 .000 .66667 .11726 .43638 .89696
not
assumed
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

The above tests are performed at 95percent level of confidence or 5 percent

significant level and two tailed values obtained are zero. The table shows mean value of
confidence level between men and women. The mean value for that of advance district
are 3.33 which is much above that of backward districts of Malwa i.e. 2.66. The women
of backward districts have low education, income and monetary grasp because of less
exposure. In advanced cities good employment and education opp ortunities make the
women more assertive and firm towards their pecuniary affairs. This proves that the
hypothesis 3 i.e. financial decision making among women of advanced and backward
belt of the region is in significant and rejected.

18
H 04 : There is no significant difference between risk aversion and confidence
levels among women and men of the region.

In this hypothesis the relationship between risk bearing capacity and financial
decision making by women is tested. The risk aversion and confidence level between
men and women is decided through age, education, employment, income, financial
literacy and marital status. Literate women also displays high propensity of conviction
and takes more risk than men. Generally it is observed that women have in born less
risk taking capacity than men and they assume it as men’s cup of tea. It is discovered
from the data that women take less risk than men and prefer to invest in safe bank
deposits where as men are interested in real estate and share market. Women take
calculated risks and are not comfortable in unfamiliar financial situations. Men always
come up with fresh ideas and understands all financial information required for
investment. The relationship is established using independent T-test. The results of the
test in this case are also significant. The difference between risk aversion and
confidence levels and the mean values of men and women are statistically significant.
The mean value of that of women is found to be 3.333 where as that of men is
[Link] means that women like to take less risk as compared to men. Acco rding to
the theory of planned behavior, a woman seeks a higher amount of return in a similar
risk conditions as compared to their counterpart. The table 4.17 shows the t statistical
values below.

The sample for the test is 600 as we are comparing the beh avior of men and
women both. The test is performed at 95 percent confidence level or 5 percent
significance level and the degree of freedom is 598 but the p value is 0.02, which is
insignificant. Hence the hypothesis is rejected that there is significant difference
between risk aversion and confidence levels among women and men of the region.

19
 Table 4.17 Table showing

Std. Std. Error

Gender N Mean
Deviation Mean
1.00 600 3.3333 1.37666 .07948
2.00 600 2.6667 1.49320 .08621

Levene's Test
for Equality t-test for Equality of Means
of Variances
95%
Confidence
Sig. (2- Mean Std. Error
F Sig. t Df Interval of the
tailed) Difference Difference
Difference
Lower Upper
4.397 .036 5.685 598 .000 .66667 .11726 .43638 .89696
Equal
variances
5.685 594.094 .000 .66667 .11726 .43638 .89696
not
assumed
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

H 05: There is no significant relationship between financial literacy and financial

decision making.

In this Hypothesis the researcher tests the relationship between financial

literacy and financial decision making. This depends upon the professional knowledge
attainted by the person and the profession of the concerned. Banking and corporate
employee’s display more knowledge than working in the education sector. The
relationship is established using linear regression between financial literacy and
financial decision making. The results are positive and the model is able to explain 66
percent of the variance. This means that there is a positive and significant relationsh ip
between financial literacy and financial decision making by women. Financial literacy
is more in advanced districts especially women in corporate and banking sector in
advanced districts because of their nature of job as they get knowledge from their
place of work. Education sector respondents of backward districts are reluctant to

20
participate in financial matters because of less financial knowledge . So it can be
concluded that there is a requirement to provide financial education to the women of
backward area so that they can invest wisely and improve the financial status of their
family and be more autonomous. The table 4.18 shows the Model Summary of
Regression model.

Table 4.18
Model Summary of Regression Analysis
Model Summary

R Adjusted R Std. Error of

Model R
Square Square the Estimate
a
1 .754 .668 .667 .23113
a. Predictors: (Constant), Literacy
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

The Table 4.19 below shows the results of Analysis of Variance of the regression
analysis.

Table 4.19
Results of Analysis of Variance
ANOVA b

Sum of Mean
Model Df F Sig.
Squares Square
1 Regression 42.014 1 42.014 786.500 .000 a
Residual 31.944 598 .053
Total 73.958 599
a. Predictors: (Constant), Literacy
b. Dependent Variable: Investment
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

21
 Table 4.20
Table showing Coefficients of Regression Analysis
Coefficients

Unstandardized Standardized
Model Coefficients Coefficients t Sig.
B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) 2.472 .039 62.933 .000
Literacy .611 .022 .754 28.045 .000
a. Dependent Variable: Investment
Source: Primary Survey (2016).

The Table 4.20 shows the Coefficients of Regression Analysis all the values are
within boundary conditions and statistically significant. This proves that the hypothesis
is rejected that there is significant relationship between financial literacy and financial
decision making.

4.6 Discussion on results

It is concluded that there exists significance relationship between income and

investment level. More the income more the awareness of investment avenues. Women
tends to display less confidence and are not interested in taking risk as compared to
men. They are attracted towards safe and secure investments. There is difference
between the women of advanced and backward region of the area. The level of financial
knowledge also judges the financial decision-making capacity of the women. All the
conclusions came up with the view point that though some alteration is there in the
status of women but still it wants more amendments to completely bring both the
genders at par.

22