ROLE OF CHILDREN AND GROWTH OF THE MARKET 4.1...

99

CHAPTER – IV

ROLE OF CHILDREN AND GROWTH OF THE MARKET

4.1 Introduction

The increasing role of children in household buying decisions makes it essential for

marketers to realize that growth of market depends on the effectiveness in meeting consumer needs

with the help of children who directly or indirectly influence their parents to buy the household

products. Children today are more informed consumers at an early age. They learn to discriminate

claims and to process marketing information. Parents today shop with their children and are more

likely to seek their advice. By following this, the present chapter analyzes different factors of the

study in hand to determine the role of children in household buying decisions and also studies the

growth of the market because of the influencing role of children in household buying decisions.

The first objective of the study is to examine the role of children in the household buying

decisions. The factor combination from the scale i.e. Fa1, Fa2, Fa5, and Fa12 from the parent‟s

responses and Fb1, Fb2, Fb4 and Fb10 from the children responses has been taken for consideration to

study this phenomenon.

Today the household buying decisions are initiated by the children and parents agree to their

choice or they want their consent in buying household products. Children are always early adopters

and in a hurry to take decisions. Sometimes when there are differences between the parents (mother

and father) to buy a Product, children resolve the conflict by playing the role of mediator. Today‟s

parents allow the children to buy daily need products of his choice and appreciate the things

purchased by him. Children today feel that as they are prominent members of the family hence their

evaluation of the product purchase is important and most of the time they are the initiators / problem

100

recognizers and hence, they are the Ist once to demand for the product but in case of complex buying

behaviour they rely on their family‟s advice.

4.2 Analysis of the Survey Results

As analysis is based on two cities of Punjab - Bathinda and Ludhiana and from both the cities

two types of respondents a parent and a child has been asked through a structured questionnaire and

they were asked to express their opinion on five point scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree).

4.2.1 Parents Agree to the Consent of Children

It is found that out of the total 500 respondents majority 68 percent agree to the statement

whereas there are only a meager number of respondents (11 percent) who disagree to it. Further

weighted average score (WAS) has been calculated by assigning weights as -2, -1, 0, +1 and +2 to

strongly disagree, disagree, indifferent, agree and strongly agree respectively. City wise analysis also

shows the same trend as 65.6 percent respondents from Bathinda and 70.4 percent respondents from

Ludhiana either agree or strongly agree to the statement and only 10.4 percent from Bathinda and

11.6 percent respondents from Ludhiana disagree to it.

Table 4.1 Parents Agree to the Consent of Children:

All Parent Respondents

Group/Sub- group WAS CV SDA D I A SA Total

Bathinda 0.64 22.25 2

(0.80)

24

(9.60)

60

(24)

140

(56)

24

(9.6)

250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.63 22.04 4

(1.60) 25

(10.00) 45

(18.00) 162

(64.80) 14

(5.60) 250

(100)

Total 0.63 22.31 6

(1.20) 49

(9.80) 105

(21.00) 302

(60.40) 38

(7.60) 500

(100)

SDA : Strongly Disagree, DA: Disagree, I: Indifferent, A: Agree, SA: Strongly Agree Chi^2= 7.06 (df: 4) C=0.12; t=0.166(df:498)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.

101

Overall WAS (0.63) as shown in Table 4.1 signifies that the respondents seem to agree with

the statement in majority. City wise analysis also shows the same results. Co-efficient of variation

22.31 percent shows the variation in data. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and t-test

explains that there is no association between the respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana.


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

Bathinda

Up to 35 0.73 15.28 1

(6.67) 2

(13.33) 12

(80.00)

15 (100)

35 – 40 0.58 22.63 11

(12.50)

22

(25.00)

48

(54.55)

7

(7.95)

88

(100)

40 – 45 0.60 23.89 2

(1.74) 11

(9.57) 30

(26.09) 60

(52.17) 12

(10.43) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.91 17.39 1

(3.12) 6

(18.75) 20

(62.50) 5

(15.62) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.84 20.31 1

(4.00)

1

(4.00)

1

(4.00)

20

(80.00)

2

(8.00)

25

(100)

35 – 40 0.61 22.71 2

(2.41) 9

(10.84) 11

(13.25) 58

(69.88) 3

(3.61) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.55 20.56 12

(12.12) 23

(23.23) 62

(62.63) 2

(2.02) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.72 24.19 1

(2.33)

3

(6.98)

10

(23.26)

22

(51.16)

7

(16.28)

43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.80 18.68 1

(2.50) 2

(5.00) 3

(7.50) 32

(80.00) 2

(5.00) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.60 22.50 2

(1.17) 20

(11.70) 33

(19.30) 106

(61.99) 10

(5.85) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.57 22.41 2

(0.93)

23

(10.75)

53

(24.77)

122

(57.01)

14

(6.54)

214

(100)

Above 45 0.80 21.58 1

(1.33) 4

(5.33) 16

(21.33) 42

(56.00) 12

(16.00) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 11.07 (df : 12) C = 0.21; F = 1.46 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 25.08* (df : 12) C = 0.30; F = 1.13 (df : 3, 246) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 20.74 (df : 12) C = 0.20; F = 2.14 (df : 3, 496)

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

Table 4.2 shows the age wise analysis of the respondents for the first factor combination and

it is evident from the table that Bathinda respondents who are in age group of above 45 years and

Ludhiana respondents who are in age group of up to 35 years agreed to the statement in majority as

WAS is the highest in these age groups 0.91 for Bathinda respondents and 0.84 for Ludhiana

respondents. Co-efficient of variation shows that younger respondents of up to 35 years are more

102

consistent in their responses as compared to other age categories in both the cities. Statistically

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test for Bathinda respondents explain that respondents of

different ages have similar opinion regarding the statement but significant value of chi-square for

Ludhiana respondents show rejection of null hypothesis which means that respondents‟ perception

depends on their age. Co-efficient of contingency 0.30 also witnesses a large association among

these variables.

Table 4.3

Parents Agree to the Consent of Children:

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

Bathinda

Business 0.57 25.49 2

(2.06) 12

(12.37) 22

(22.68) 51

(52.58) 10

(10.31) 97

(100)

Service 0.69 20.33 12

(7.84) 38

(24.84) 89

(58.17) 14

(9.15) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.61 21.88 2

(1.32) 16

(10.60) 28

(18.54) 98

(64.90) 7

(4.64) 151

(100)

Service 0.66 22.40 2

(2.02) 9

(9.09) 17

(17.17) 64

(64.65) 7

(7.07) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.59 23.40 4

(1.61) 28

(11.29) 50

(20.16) 149

(60.08) 17

(6.85) 248

(100)

Service 0.67 20.98 2

(0.79) 21

(8.33) 55

(21.83) 153

(60.71) 21

(8.33) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 4.95 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 1.084 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 1.01 (df : 4) C = 0.06; t = 0.453 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 2.35 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 1.134 (df : 498)


Occupation wise analysis of respondents in Table 4.3 manifests that 67.32 percent Bathinda

respondents and 71.72 percent Ludhiana respondents from service class agree to the statement. WAS

0.69 for Bathinda respondents and 0.66 for Ludhiana respondents, signifies the conclusion. Further

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test explain that respondents from different occupations have

almost analogous opinion and variations are due to sample fluctuations.

103


Gender Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents

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

Bathinda

Male 0.61 22.71 2

(1.04) 18

(9.38) 50

(26.04) 104

(54.17) 18

(9.38) 192

(100)

Female 0.72 20.97 6

(10.34) 10

(17.24) 36

(62.07) 6

(10.34) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.63 22.04 2

(1.23) 16

(9.82) 33

(20.25) 101

(61.96) 11

(6.75) 163

(100)

Female 0.62 22.38 2

(2.30) 9

(10.34) 12

(13.79) 61

(70.11) 3

(3.45) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.62 22.38 4

(1.13) 34

(9.58) 83

(23.38) 205

(57.75) 29

(8.17) 355

(100)

Female 0.66 21.86 2

(1.38) 15

(10.34) 22

(15.17) 97

(66.90) 9

(6.21) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 2.63 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 0.923 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 3.42 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.105 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.37 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 0.500 (df : 498)


Table 4.4 shows the gender wise analysis of the respondents. Although majority of the

respondents are male but percentage wise majority (72.41 percent) female respondents from

Bathinda and (73.56 percent) from Ludhiana agree to the statement. WAS is above (0.50) in all the

cases but it is highest i.e. 0.72 in case of female respondents of Bathinda which explains that female

respondents of this city agree more to the consent of children while buying household products,

whereas in Ludhiana both male and female respondents agree to the consent of children which

explains that both male and female parents in Ludhiana understand their children because they are

much aware of their children‟s needs but in Bathinda female respondents understand their children

more as compared to males. Insignificant value of t-test and chi-square witnesses that respondents

have similar opinion regarding the statement in both the cities.

104


Lady of Household Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Working 0.68 19.29 3

(10.71) 4

(14.29) 20

(71.43) 1

(3.57) 28

(100)

Non-working 0.64 22.80 2

(0.90) 21

(9.46) 56

(25.23) 120

(54.05) 23

(10.36) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.78 15.87 2

(3.17)

14

(22.22)

43

(68.25)

4

(6.35)

63

(100)


(2.14) 23

(12.30) 31

(16.58) 119

(63.64) 10

(5.35) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.75 17.07 5

(5.49) 18

(19.78) 63

(69.23) 5

(5.49) 91

(100)


(1.47)

44

(10.76)

87

(21.27)

239

(58.44)

33

(8.07)

409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.07 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.299 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 6.34 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 2.039* (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.60 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 1.757 (df : 498)

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

Majority of the respondents who favour that parents agree to the consent of children (74.72

percent) are from the category where lady of the household is working where as (66.51 percent) who

support the statement are from the category where lady of household is not working only 5.49

percent and 12.23 percent respondents who do not favour the statement are from the category where

lady of household is working and non-working respectively. Table 4.5 shows 0.75 WAS (total

respondents), 0.68 WAS (Bathinda respondents) and 0.78 WAS (Ludhiana respondents) from the

category where lady of household is working, it reflects strong favour of double income families to

the statement that parents agree to the consent of children because they have much awareness, more

money and less time to spend with the children. Further co-efficient of variation also shows the

maximum variation in responses of respondents where lady of household is not working. Though

WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases but insignificant value of chi-square in both the cities show that

respondents have almost similar opinion regarding the statement irrespective to the lady of

household working or not but significant value of t-test and co-efficient of contingency inferences

105

diverse opinion of Ludhiana respondents from the categories of lady of household working or non-

working.


Number of Children Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

One 0.36 26.49 3

(21.43) 4

(28.57) 6

(42.86) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

Two 0.64 22.25 1

(0.68) 14

(9.59) 36

(24.66) 81

(55.48) 14

(9.59) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.69 21.68 1

(1.11) 7

(7.78) 20

(22.22) 53

(58.89) 9

(10.00) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.62 17.13 1

(7.69) 3

(23.08) 9

(69.23)

13 (100)

Two 0.60 22.22 3

(1.90) 14

(8.86) 35

(22.15) 97

(61.39) 9

(5.70) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.68 22.28 1

(1.27) 10

(12.66) 7

(8.86) 56

(70.89) 5

(6.33) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.48 22.70 4

(14.81) 7

(25.93) 15

(55.56) 1

(3.70) 27

(100)

Two 0.62 22.38 4

(1.32) 28

(9.21) 71

(23.36) 178

(58.55) 23

(7.57) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.69 21.95 2

(1.18) 17

(10.06) 27

(15.98) 109

(64.50) 14

(8.28) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 3.54 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 1.00 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 8.13 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.28 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 5.71 (df : 8) C = 0.11; F = 0.89 (df : 2, 497)


Table 4.6 reflects the opinion of the respondents, having number of children one, two and

three/more. It reveals that among three categories respondents who have three/more children gain

more importance with the highest WAS of 0.69 for total respondents and Bathinda respondents and

0.68 for Ludhiana respondents. It also reflects that the majority of the respondents who have

three/more children agree with the statement (68.89 percent Bathinda respondents, 77.22 percent

Ludhiana respondents and 72.78 percent total respondents). Ludhiana respondents of this category

also have maximum variation in their responses. However maximum variation can be seen in

responses of Bathinda respondents and total respondents who have only one child (deduced from CV

26.49 percent of Bathinda respondents and 22.70 percent of total respondents) though insignificant

value of chi-square and F-test witnesses that respondents having one, two and three/more children

106

from both the cities do not differ with respect to the statement and a few variation are just because of

sample fluctuations.


Income Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.60 21.67 1

(0.93) 7

(6.54) 36

(33.64) 53

(49.53) 10

(9.35) 107

(100)

10-20 0.55 26.20 1

(1.06) 16

(17.02) 17

(18.09) 50

(53.19) 10

(10.64) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.90 13.85 1

(2.04) 7

(14.29) 37

(75.51) 4

(8.16) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.71 21.83 1

(1.52) 6

(9.09) 10

(15.15) 43

(65.15) 6

(9.09) 66

(100)

10-20 0.45 24.35 2

(2.30) 13

(14.94) 17

(19.54) 54

(62.07) 1

(1.15) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.73 19.57 1

(1.03) 6

(6.19) 18

(18.56) 65

(67.01) 7

(7.22) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.64 21.98 2

(1.16) 13

(7.51) 46

(26.59) 96

(55.49) 16

(9.25) 173

(100)

10-20 0.50 25.43 3

(1.66) 29

(16.02) 34

(18.78) 104

(57.46) 11

(6.08) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.79 17.68 1

(0.68) 7

(4.79) 25

(17.12) 102

(69.86) 11

(7.53) 146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 21.77** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 3.18* (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 9.63 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 3.42* (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 20.77** (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 5.11** (df : 2, 497)

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

* Significant at five percent level of significance

Income is another important factor which influences the role of children to a greater extent. It

is evident from Table 4.7 that majority of the respondents 77.39 percent of total respondents 83.67

percent of Bathinda respondents and 74.23 percent of Ludhiana respondents of higher income group

of above Rs. 20,000 agree or strongly agree to the statement and highest WAS 0.79 of total

respondents, 0.90 from Bathinda respondents and 0.73 from Ludhiana respondents also witnesses the

same conclusion. It is also revealed that maximum variation in responses of respondents can be seen

from the middle income group of Rs. 10,000 - 20,000 (deduced from CV i.e. 26.20 percent of

Bathinda respondents and 24.35 percent of Ludhiana respondents). Statistical value of chi-square is

significant only in case of Bathinda respondents and total number of respondents which means that

107

income has a significant impact on respondents perception only in Bathinda city or when they are

combined with Ludhiana, supported by co-efficient of contingency which shows high association i.e.

0.28 among the respondent of this city. Though chi-square value of Ludhiana respondents shows the

insignificant value but significant value of F-test in all cases shows that respondents‟ perception

significantly varies with respect to income. Hence, it can be concluded that income has a significant

impact on parents as more respondents of high income group agree to the consent of children.


Education Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Matric 0.32 24.10 1

(1.41) 8

(11.27) 33

(46.48) 25

(35.21) 4

(5.63) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.75 20.53 12

(9.68) 20

(16.13) 79

(63.71) 13

(10.48) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.80 21.58 1

(1.82) 4

(7.27) 7

(12.73) 36

(65.45) 7

(12.73) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.53 25.50 2

(3.51) 8

(14.04) 7

(12.28) 38

(66.67) 2

(3.51) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.58 23.18 1

(0.83) 16

(13.33) 23

(19.17) 72

(60.00) 8

(6.67) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.78 16.40 1

(1.37) 1

(1.37) 15

(20.55) 52

(71.23) 4

(5.48) 73

(100)

Tota

Matric 0.41 24.93 3

(2.34) 16

(12.50) 40

(31.25) 63

(49.22) 6

(4.69) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.67 21.80 1

(0.41) 28

(11.48) 43

(17.62) 151

(61.89) 21

(8.61) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.79 18.73 2

(1.56) 5

(3.91) 22

(17.19) 88

(68.75) 11

(8.59) 128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 33.11** (df : 8) C = 0.34; F = 7.94** (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 12.47 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 1.98 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 23.74** (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 7.50** (df : 2, 497)


Educational level of respondents also shows that highly qualified persons gave more

importance to their children. Higher WAS (0.80 and 0.78) from postgraduate respondents of

Bathinda and Ludhiana in Table 4.8 represents a clear picture where more than 75 percent

respondents who are highly qualified (up to post graduation) agree to the consent of children

whereas less than 10 percent of this category disagrees with statement. Co-efficient of variation

108

shows the maximum variation in responses of respondents from the category of less qualified person

(up to matric). Significant value of chi-square, F-test and co-efficient of contingency in case of

Bathinda respondents shows that education has a significant influence on respondents‟ perception.

But perception of Ludhiana respondents seems to be similar as F-test and chi-square demonstrate

insignificant values. Hence, it can be concluded that respondents who are highly educated agree to

the children more in buying household products.

Comparative Analysis of the Statement

Comparative analysis of the statement shows that occupation, gender and number of children

do not have any significant influence on the respondents‟ perception. Whereas income and education

significantly influence Bathinda respondents. Age and lady of household (working or non-working)

significantly affect the perception of Ludhiana respondents. Hence it can be concluded that age,

income and education have significant influence on the role of children.

4.2.2 Most of Routine Decisions are Initiated by Children

Table 4.9 Routine Decisions are Initiated by Children:



Bathinda -0.43 42.41 36

(14.40)

105

(42.00)

50

(20.00)

48

(19.20)

11

(4.40)

250

(100)

Ludhiana -0.49 40.24 34

(13.60) 111

(44.40) 54

(21.60) 45

(18.00) 6

(2.40) 250

(100)

Total -0.46 41.34 70

(14.00) 216

(43.20) 104

(20.80) 93

(18.60) 17

(3.40) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 1.95 (df:4) C= 0.06, t = 0.639 (df: 498)


Table 4.9 shows that majority of the respondents from both the cities disagree to the

statement as 56.40 percent from Bathinda and 58 percent from Ludhiana either disagree or strongly

disagree to the statement. There are only 23.60 percent respondents from Bathinda and 20.40 percent

from Ludhiana who agree to the statement, rest show the indifferent attitude towards the statement.

109

WAS is negative in both the cities which reflects the rare agreement to the statement, co-efficient of

variation shows high variation in responses of respondents of Bathinda. Statistical value of chi-

square and t-test shows negative association between the respondents of two cities.



Bathinda

Up to 35 0.00 44.00 2

(13.33) 4

(26.67) 4

(26.67) 2

(13.33) 3

(20.00) 15

(100)

35 – 40 - 0.42 43.41 14

(15.91)

36

(40.91)

14

(15.91)

21

(23.86)

3

(3.41)

88

(100)

40 – 45 - 0.43 40.86 16

(13.91) 46

(40.00) 28

(24.35) 21

(18.26) 4

(3.48) 115

(100)

Above 45 - 0.66 41.03 4

(12.50) 19

(59.38) 4

(12.50) 4

(12.50) 1

(3.12) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 - 0.04 41.22 5

(20.00)

3

(12.00)

6

(24.00)

10

(40.00)

1

(4.00)

25

(100)

35 – 40 - 0.60 44.58 15

(18.07) 40

(48.19) 11

(13.25) 14

(16.87) 3

(3.61) 83

(100)

40 – 45 - 0.56 34.43 11

(11.11) 45

(45.45) 31

(31.31) 12

(12.12)

99 (100)

Above 45 - 0.37 39.16 3

(6.98)

23

(53.49)

6

(13.95)

9

(20.93)

2

(4.65)

43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 - 0.03 41.95 7

(17.50) 7

(17.50) 10

(25.00) 12

(30.00) 4

(10.00) 40

(100)

35 – 40 - 0.51 44.18 29

(16.96) 76

(44.44) 25

(14.62) 35

(20.47) 6

(3.51) 171

(100)

40 – 45 - 0.49 38.25 27

(12.62)

91

(42.52)

59

(27.57)

33

(15.42)

4

(1.87)

214

(100)

Above 45 - 0.49 40.24 7

(9.33) 42

(56.00) 10

(13.33) 13

(17.33) 3

(4.00) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 17.48 (df : 12) C = 0.26; F = 1.25 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 32.00** (df : 12) C = 0.34; F = 2.35 (df : 3, 246)

Total (Age) Chi^2 = 33.16** (df : 12) C = 0.25; F = 2.49 (df : 3, 496) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.

** Significant at one percent level of significance

Age wise analysis of the respondents are shown in table 4.10 which depicts that majority of

the respondents (71.88 percent) who disagree to the statement from Bathinda belong to the age

category of above 45 and from Ludhiana maximum disagreement (66.26 percent) are from the age

category of 35-40 years. Negative value of WAS in all the cases support the disagreement of the

statement. Co-efficient of variation shows the variation in data which is maximum 44 percent from

the age category of up to 35 years from Bathinda respondents, 44.58 percent from the age category

110

of 35-40 years in case of Ludhiana respondents and it is 44.18 percent from the age category of 35-

40 years in case of total respondents. Insignificant value of F-test in all the cases explains that

opinion of the respondents seems to be similar with respect to age. Chi-square test shows the

significant value from Ludhiana respondents and total respondents which explains that age has

significant influence on respondents‟ opinion supported by high value of co-efficient of contingency

in Ludhiana i.e. 0.34. Table 4.10 divulges that old age respondents of Bathinda disagree to the

statement more as compared to middle age respondents of Ludhiana.


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

Bathinda

Business - 0.40 44.23 17

(17.53) 35

(36.08) 21

(21.65) 18

(18.56) 6

(6.19) 97

(100)

Service - 0.44 40.62 19

(12.42) 70

(45.75) 29

(18.95) 30

(19.61) 5

(3.27) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business - 0.40 40.77 20

(13.25) 62

(41.06) 33

(21.85) 31

(20.53) 5

(3.31) 151

(100)

Service - 0.62 39.08 14

(14.14) 49

(49.49) 21

(21.21) 14

(14.14) 1

(1.01) 99

(100)

Total

Business - 0.40 42.31 37

(14.92) 97

(39.11) 54

(21.77) 49

(19.76) 11

(4.44) 240

(100)

Service - 0.51 40.16 33

(13.10) 119

(47.22) 50

(19.84) 44

(17.46) 6

(2.38) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.80 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.294 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.68 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.672 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 4.33 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 1.157 (df : 498)


Respondents of different occupation also do not agree much that most of routine decisions

are initiated by children. Negative WAS in all the cases in table 4.11 support the result. It is found

that majority of the respondents 58.17 percent from Bathinda, 63.63 percent from Ludhiana and

60.32 percent total respondents do not agree to the statement and belong to service class. Co-

efficient of variation shows variation in responses of respondents which is maximum in business

111

class. Statistical value of chi-square and t-test results acceptance of null hypothesis which means that

respondents‟ opinion does not vary with occupation. In other words, occupation of respondents has

negative association with the statement.




Bathinda

Male - 0.49 42.63 29

(15.10) 86

(44.79) 33

(17.19) 38

(19.79) 6

(3.12) 192

(100)

Female - 0.22 40.65 7

(12.07) 19

(32.76) 17

(29.31) 10

(17.24) 5

(8.62) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male - 0.48 40.48 24

(14.72) 69

(42.33) 35

(21.47) 32

(19.63) 3

(1.84) 163

(100)

Female - 0.49 39.44 10

(11.49) 42

(48.28) 19

(21.84) 13

(14.94) 3

(3.45) 87

(100)

Total

Male - 0.49 41.83 53

(14.93) 155

(43.66) 68

(19.15) 70

(19.72) 9

(2.54) 355

(100)

Female - 0.39 40.61 17

(11.72) 61

(42.07) 36

(24.83) 23

(15.86) 8

(5.52) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 8.30 (df : 4) C = 0.18; t = 1.588 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 2.19 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 0.072 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.92 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 0.973 (df : 498)


Overall negative WAS (-0.49) for male respondents and (-0.39) for female respondents in

Table 4.12 describes that there are only 22.26 percent male respondents and 21.38 percent female

respondents who agree to the statement. Majority male respondents 58.59 percent and 53.79 percent

female respondents disagree with the statement. Majority of male respondents (59.89 percent) of

Bathinda also show the disagreement with the statement with negative WAS of -0.49. From

Ludhiana majority female respondents (59.77 percent) with WAS -0.49 disagree with the statement.

Statistical results of chi-square and t-test show that the respondents opinion are independent

112

irrespective of their gender, supported by co-efficient of contingency which shows very little

association among the respondents of both the cities.




Bathinda

Working - 0.50 34.80 1

(3.57) 17

(60.71) 6

(21.43) 3

(10.71) 1

(3.57) 28

(100)

Not working - 0.42 43.02 35

(15.77) 88

(39.64) 44

(19.82) 45

(20.27) 10

(4.50) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working - 0.29 38.75 6

(9.52) 25

(39.68) 16

(25.40) 13

(20.63) 3

(4.76) 63

(100)

Not working - 0.56 40.57 28

(14.97) 86

(45.99) 38

(20.32) 32

(17.11) 3

(1.60) 187

(100)

Total

Working - 0.35 37.74 7

(7.69) 42

(46.15) 22

(24.18) 16

(17.58) 4

(4.40) 91

(100)

Not working - 0.48 42.06 63

(15.40) 174

(42.54) 82

(20.05) 77

(18.83) 13

(3.18) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 6.46 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 0.451 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.30 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 1.798 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.38 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 1.110 (df : 498)


Table 4.13 explains that in Bathinda majority of the respondents (64.28 percent) with

working lady in their house disagree to the statement with high negative WAS of -0.50 whereas from

Ludhiana WAS is -0.56 from those respondents who do not have working lady in their house, 60.96

percent respondents from this category disagree with the statement. Co-efficient of variation in all

the cases shows maximum variation in responses of respondents who do not have working lady in

their house. Further insignificant value of chi-square and t-test from both the cities show that

respondents have similar opinion regarding the statement.

113

Table 4.14

Routine Decisions are Initiated by Children:



Bathinda

One - 0.07 30.03 6

(42.86) 3

(21.43) 5

(35.71)

14 (100)

Two - 0.49 45.42 25

(17.12) 64

(43.84) 24

(16.44) 24

(16.44) 9

(6.16) 146

(100)

Three/More - 0.38 38.93 11

(12.22) 35

(38.89) 23

(25.56) 19

(21.11) 2

(2.22) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One - 0.15 30.18 6

(46.15) 3

(23.08) 4

(30.77)

13 (100)

Two - 0.47 39.53 18

(11.39) 75

(47.47) 33

(20.89) 27

(17.09) 5

(3.16) 158

(100)

Three/More - 0.58 42.98 16

(20.25) 30

(37.97) 18

(22.78) 14

(17.72) 1

(1.27) 79

(100)

Total

One - 0.11 30.10 12

(44.44) 6

(22.22) 9

(33.33)

27 (100)

Two - 0.48 42.46 43

(14.14)

139

(45.72)

57

(18.75)

51

(16.78)

14

(4.61)

304

(100)

Three/More - 0.47 40.71 27

(15.98) 65

(38.46) 41

(24.26) 33

(19.53) 3

(1.78) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 11.08 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 1.11 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 8.46 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.08 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 14.51 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.56 (df : 2, 497)


Majority of the respondents from Bathinda (60.96 percent) and Ludhiana (58.86 percent)

who have two children disagree to the statement most with highest negative WAS of -0.49

(Bathinda) and -0.47 (Ludhiana). Table 4.14 shows that 35.71 respondents from Bathinda and 30.77

percent respondents from Ludhiana who have only one child agree to the statement. Insignificant

value of chi-square and F-test in all the cases accepts the null hypothesis which means that all the

respondents have similar opinion regarding the statement irrespective of the number of children they

have. However, coefficient of variation shows that respondents who have only one child shows more

consistency in their responses in both the cities.

114




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th - 0.62 46.64 25

(23.36) 41

(38.32) 19

(17.76) 19

(17.76) 3

(2.80) 107

(100)

10-20 - 0.22 39.57 8

(8.51) 40

(42.55) 17

(18.09) 23

(24.47) 6

(6.38) 94

(100)

Above 20 - 0.41 35.52 3

(6.12)

24

(48.98)

14

(28.57)

6

(12.24)

2

(4.08)

49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th - 0.65 47.23 17

(25.76) 24

(36.36) 11

(16.67) 13

(19.70) 1

(1.52) 66

(100)

10-20 - 0.57 38.68 10

(11.49) 46

(52.87) 17

(19.54) 12

(13.79) 2

(2.30) 87

(100)

Above 20 - 0.30 36.30 7

(7.22)

41

(42.27)

26

(26.80)

20

(20.62)

3

(3.09)

97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th - 0.63 46.84 42

(24.28) 65

(37.57) 30

(17.34) 32

(18.50) 4

(2.31) 173

(100)

10-20 - 0.39 39.85 18

(9.94) 86

(47.51) 34

(18.78) 35

(19.34) 8

(4.42) 181

(100)

Above 20 - 0.34 36.09 10

(6.85)

65

(44.52)

40

(27.40)

26

(17.81)

5

(3.42)

146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 17.91* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 3.34* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 16.70* (df : 8) C = 0.25; F = 2.90 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 28.28** (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 3.70* (df : 2, 497)



When respondents were surveyed according to their monthly family income, it was found

that majority of the respondents 61.85 percent of total respondents from the low income category of

up to Rs. 10,000 disagree to the statement with highest negative WAS of -0.63. City wise analysis in

Table 4.15 shows that from Bathinda 61.68 percent respondents from low income category with

WAS of -0.62 and from Ludhiana 64.36 percent respondents from middle income category with

WAS of -0.57 and 62.12 percent from low income category of up to Rs. 10,000 with WAS of -0.65

disagree to the statement. Variation in the responses of respondents can be seen from low income

category from all the respondents (deduced from value of co-efficient of variation). Significant value

of chi-square from both the cities explains that respondent‟s perception significantly differs with

respect to their monthly family income. Statistical value of F-test is also significant for Bathinda

115

respondents and total respondents but it is insignificant in case of Ludhiana respondents which

depicts that respondents perception seems to be similar with respect to monthly family income only

in Ludhiana city. Co-efficient of contingency (0-29) also reveals high level of association among the

respondents in both the cities. Hence, income of the respondent has significant impact on the

statement.




Bathinda

Matric - 0.63 47.68 19

(26.76) 23

(32.39) 15

(21.13) 12

(16.90) 2

(2.82) 71

(100)

Graduate - 0.31 40.15 12

(9.68) 56

(45.16) 21

(16.94) 29

(23.39) 6

(4.84) 124

(100)

Post Grad. - 0.42 38.76 5

(9.09) 26

(47.27) 14

(25.45) 7

(12.73) 3

(5.45) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric - 0.95 42.44 15

(26.32) 29

(50.88) 8

(14.04) 5

(8.77)

57 (100)

Graduate - 0.40 39.23 12

(10.00) 55

(45.83) 27

(22.50) 21

(17.50) 5

(4.17) 120

(100)

Post Grad. - 0.27 36.63 7

(9.59) 27

(36.99) 19

(26.03) 19

(26.03) 1

(1.37) 73

(100)

Total

Matric - 0.77 46.19 34

(26.56) 52

(40.62) 23

(17.97) 17

(13.28) 2

(1.56) 128

(100)

Graduate - 0.36 39.77 24

(9.84) 111

(45.49) 48

(19.67) 50

(20.49) 11

(4.51) 244

(100)

Post Grad. - 0.34 37.59 12

(9.38) 53

(41.41) 33

(25.78) 26

(20.31) 4

(3.12) 128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 17.32* (df : 8) C = 0.25; F = 1.96 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 21.08** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 8.38** (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 26.96** (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 7.97** (df : 2, 497)



Table 4.16 shows highest negative WAS -0.63 from Bathinda, -0.95 from Ludhiana and -0.77

from total respondents which explains that majority of the respondents who disagree to the statement

are less educated (qualified up to matric). Co-efficient of variation also shows the maximum

variation in the responses of these respondents because of less awareness due to lesser education.

Statistical value of chi-square rejects null hypothesis which means that opinion of respondents of

both the cities significantly varies with respect to their education. F-test also shows significant value

116

for total respondents and Ludhiana respondents but it is insignificant in case of Bathinda respondents

which shows that respondents of this city have similar opinion regarding the statement irrespective

of their educational level. Value of co-efficient of contingency shows great degree of association

among the respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana.


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that occupation, gender, lady of household

working or non-working and number of children do not have any impact on the perception of

respondents but income and education of the Bathinda respondents significantly varies their

perception about the statement, whereas in case of Ludhiana age, income and educational level of

respondents have significant influence on the respondents‟ perception.

4.2.3 Children Make Hurry to Take Decisions

While accepting the role of children parents agree that children are early adopters, they see

the product and decide to buy the product. Sometimes they make some wrong decisions because they

always make a hurry to take decision.

Table 4.17 Children Make Hurry to Take Decisions:



Bathinda 0.38 30.77 13

(5.20) 46

(18.40) 46

(18.40) 123

(49.20) 22

(8.80) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.67 30.52 7

(2.80) 48

(19.20) 24

(9.60) 112

(44.80) 59

(23.60) 250

(100)

Total 0.53 30.88 20

(4.00) 94

(18.80) 70

(14.00) 235

(47.00) 81

(16.20) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 26.17 **(df:14) C= 0.22 , t = 3.021 ** (df: 498)



Responses of the parents about this statement have been collected and analyzes in table 4.17.

It is found that out of total 500 respondents majority 63.20 percent agree to the statement whereas

117

only 22.80 percent disagree to it. WAS 0.53 also signifies the result. City wise analysis shows that

68.40 percent respondents of Ludhiana agree to the statement as compared to 58 percent respondents

of Bathinda who agree to the statement. Highest WAS of Ludhiana i.e. 0.67 also signifies that

majority respondents of this city agree to the statement. Statistically significant value of chi-square

and t-test explains that both the cities have significant differences in their opinion regarding the

statement. Co-efficient of contingency 0.22 shows the high association between the respondents of

both the cities.



Bathinda

Up to 35 0.87 26.36 1

(6.67)

3 (20.00)

7 (46.67)

4 (26.67)

15 (100)

35 – 40 0.38 31.66 5

(5.68)

18

(20.45)

11

(12.50)

47

(53.41)

7

(7.95)

88

(100)

40 – 45 0.26 30.98 6

(5.22) 23

(20.00) 28

(24.35) 51

(44.35) 7

(6.09) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.59 27.86 1

(3.12) 5

(15.62) 4

(12.50) 18

(56.25) 4

(12.50) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.76 32.18 2

(8.00)

3

(12.00)

1

(4.00)

12

(48.00)

7

(28.00)

25

(100)

35 – 40 0.81 28.35 2

(2.41) 13

(15.66) 7

(8.43) 38

(45.78) 23

(27.71) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.55 30.70 2

(2.02) 22

(22.22) 14

(14.14) 42

(42.42) 19

(19.19) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.65 31.23 1

(2.33)

10

(23.26)

2

(4.65)

20

(46.51)

10

(23.26)

43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.80 30.00 3

(7.50) 3

(7.50) 4

(10.00) 19

(47.50) 11

(27.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.58 30.73 7

(4.09) 31

(18.13) 18

(10.53) 85

(49.71) 30

(17.54) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.39 31.27 8

(3.74)

45

(21.03)

42

(19.63)

93

(43.46)

26

(12.15)

214

(100)

Above 45 0.63 29.75 2

(2.67) 15

(20.00) 6

(8.00) 38

(50.67) 14

(18.67) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 16.31 (df : 12) C = 0.25; F = 2.05 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 10.77 (df : 12) C = 0.20; F = 0.88 (df : 3, 246)

Total (Age) Chi^2 = 20.52 (df : 12) C = 0.20; F = 2.30 (df : 3, 496) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.

Age wise analysis of the respondents in Table 4.18 shows that from Bathinda majority (73.34

percent) of the respondents from the age category of up to 35 years agree to the statement followed

by 68.75 percent respondents from the age category of above 45 years. Higher WAS 0.87 and 0.59

118

from these categories also signifies the conclusion. Co-efficient of variation 31.66 percent lies in the

age category of 35-40 years which shows maximum variation in the responses of respondents. From

Ludhiana 76 percent respondents from age category of up to 35 years with WAS of 0.76 and 73.49

percent from the age category of 35-40 years with WAS of 0.81 agree to the statement. Maximum

variation in responses of respondents is also found from the age category of up to 35 where CV is

32.18 percent. Overall WAS 0.80 shows that 75 percent of respondents agree with the statement.

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

respondents opinion does not vary with age and a few variations are due to sample fluctuations.


Occupation Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Business 0.13 34.50 7

(7.22) 24

(24.74) 21

(21.65) 39

(40.21) 6

(6.19) 97

(100)

Service 0.54 27.97 6

(3.92) 22

(14.38) 25

(16.34) 84

(54.90) 16

(10.46) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.57 32.21 5

(3.31) 34

(22.52) 15

(9.93) 64

(42.38) 33

(21.85) 151

(100)

Service 0.83 27.15 2

(2.02) 14

(14.14) 9

(9.09) 48

(48.48) 26

(26.26) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.40 33.82 12

(4.84) 58

(23.39) 36

(14.52) 103

(41.53) 39

(15.73) 248

(100)

Service 0.65 27.95 8

(3.17)

36

(14.29)

34

(13.49)

132

(52.38)

42

(16.67)

252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 9.45 (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 2.959** (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.57 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.846 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 9.66* (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 2.594** (df : 498)


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

Majority of the respondents from service occupation agree that children easily adopt the

things and always make hurry to take decisions. Table 4.19 depicts the similar picture where 65.36

percent Bathinda respondents 74.74 percent Ludhiana respondents, 69.05 percent total respondents

from service occupation agree or strongly agree to the statement. WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases

signifies the result. Respondents of Business class have maximum variation in their responses as co-

119

efficient of variation shows higher percentage in both the cities. Statistical value of chi-square is

significant only in case of total number of respondents and value of t-test is significant only for

Bathinda and total number of respondents which explains that respondents have significant influence

of their occupation only in Bathinda city and when they are combined with Ludhiana. Respondents

of Ludhiana alone don‟t have any significant influence of occupation.




Bathinda

Male 0.38 30.77 8

(4.17) 39

(20.31) 36

(18.75) 91

(47.40) 18

(9.38) 192

(100)

Female 0.40 31.47 5

(8.62) 7

(12.07) 10

(17.24) 32

(55.17) 4

(6.90) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.51 32.48 6

(3.68)

38

(23.31)

15

(9.20)

75

(46.01)

29

(17.79)

163

(100)

Female 0.98 25.38 1

(1.15) 10

(11.49) 9

(10.34) 37

(42.53) 30

(34.48) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.44 31.69 14

(3.94) 77

(21.69) 51

(14.37) 166

(46.76) 47

(13.24) 355

(100)

Female 0.74 28.61 6

(4.14)

17

(11.72)

19

(13.10)

69

(47.59)

34

(23.45)

145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.26 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.136 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 12.35* (df : 4) C = 0.22; t = 3.346** (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 12.20* (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 2.912** (df : 498)



Majority of female respondents agree that children always make hurry to take decisions as it

is witnessed by 0.74 WAS for total number of respondents, 0.98 for Ludhiana respondents and 0.40

for Bathinda respondents. Table 4.20 depicts that 62.07 percent female respondents from Bathinda

and 77.01 percent from Ludhiana agree to the statement. Statistical value of chi-square and t-test is

significant only in case of Ludhiana and total number of respondents which shows that male and

female respondents‟ perception does not appeal equally supported by co-efficient of contingency

which shows good deal of association among the respondents. But in case of Bathinda both male and

120

female respondents show similar opinion and a few variations are just because of sample

fluctuations.




Bathinda

Working 0.29 29.18 8

(28.57) 6

(21.43) 12

(42.86) 2

(7.14) 28

(100)


(5.86) 38

(17.12) 40

(18.02) 111

(50.00) 20

(9.01) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.84 29.17 2

(3.17) 9

(14.29) 6

(9.52) 26

(41.27) 20

(31.75) 63

(100)


(2.67) 39

(20.86) 18

(9.63) 86

(45.99) 39

(20.86) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.67 29.97 2

(2.20) 17

(18.68) 12

(13.19) 38

(41.76) 22

(24.18) 91

(100)


(4.40) 77

(18.83) 58

(14.18) 197

(48.17) 59

(14.43) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 3.93 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.546 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 3.70 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.394 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.98 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 1.387 (df : 498)


Overall 0.67 WAS in table 4.21 depicts that respondents who have working lady at their

house agree more to the statement as 65.94 percent respondents of this category agree to the

statement whereas in case of Bathinda respondents (59.01 percent) with housewives at their house

agree more to the statement, in Ludhiana 73.02 percent respondents who have working ladies at their

household agree to the statement with WAS of 0.84. However respondents who do not have working

ladies at their house have much variation in their responses (deduced from value of CV). Statistically

insignificant value of t-test and chi-square witness that all the respondents have similar opinion

regarding the statement irrespective of working lady or housewife at their household

121




Bathinda

One 0.50 28.00 1

(7.14) 1

(7.14) 3

(21.43) 8

(57.14) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

Two 0.27 31.80 7

(4.79) 34

(23.29) 26

(17.81) 70

(47.95) 9

(6.16) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.53 29.75 5

(5.56)

11

(12.22)

17

(18.89)

45

(50.00)

12

(13.33)

90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.69 19.51 1

(7.69) 3

(23.08) 8

(61.54) 1

(7.69) 13

(100)

Two 0.70 30.00 4

(2.53) 31

(19.62) 10

(6.33) 76

(48.10) 37

(23.42) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.61 32.69 3

(3.80)

16

(20.25)

11

(13.92)

28

(35.44)

21

(26.58)

79

(100)

Total

One 0.59 24.23 1

(3.70) 2

(7.41) 6

(22.22) 16

(59.26) 2

(7.41) 27

(100)

Two 0.50 31.14 11

(3.62) 65

(21.38) 36

(11.84) 146

(48.03) 46

(15.13) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.57 31.09 8

(4.73)

27

(15.98)

28

(16.57)

73

(43.20)

33

(19.53)

169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 8.54 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.82 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 11.84 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 0.19 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 11.22 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 0.28 (df : 2, 497)


Overall 0.59 WAS signifies that majority of the respondents (66.67 percent) who have only

one child agree to the statement that children make hurry to take decisions. In case of Bathinda 63.33

percent respondents who have three/more children with highest WAS of 0.53 agree to the statement

whereas from Ludhiana 71.52 percent respondents who have two children with WAS 0.70 agree to

the statement. WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases which reflects that respondents agree or strongly

agree to the statement in all the cases. But statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test

witness that all the respondents have almost similar opinion irrespective of the number of children

they have in both the cities. Hence, table 4.22 concludes that number of children of respondents does

not have any significant influence on their opinion.

122




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.28 32.01 6

(5.61) 22

(20.56) 23

(21.50) 48

(44.86) 8

(7.48) 107

(100)

10-20 0.39 32.15 5

(5.32) 19

(20.21) 15

(15.96) 44

(46.81) 11

(11.70) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.57 25.21 2

(4.08)

5

(10.20)

8

(16.33)

31

(63.27)

3

(6.12)

49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.76 29.79 15

(22.73) 6

(9.09) 25

(37.88) 20

(30.30) 66

(100)

10-20 0.55 28.45 19

(21.84) 16

(18.39) 37

(42.53) 15

(17.24) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.72 31.99 7

(7.22)

14

(14.43)

2

(2.06)

50

(51.55)

24

(24.74)

97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.46 31.79 6

(3.47) 37

(21.39) 29

(16.76) 73

(42.20) 28

(16.18) 173

(100)

10-20 0.47 30.55 5

(2.76) 38

(20.99) 31

(17.13) 81

(44.75) 26

(14.36) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.67 29.97 9

(6.16)

19

(13.01)

10

(6.85)

81

(55.48)

27

(18.49)

146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 7.36 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.31 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 30.29** (df : 8) C = 0.33; F = 0.79 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 17.87* (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 1.83 (df : 2, 497)



Table 4.23 depicts the monthly family income wise distribution of the respondents and it is

found that 69.39 percent Bathinda respondents and 73.97 percent total respondents who belong to

high income category of above Rs. 20,000 either agree or strongly agree to the statement. WAS of

0.57 for Bathinda respondents and 0.67 for total respondents also signify it. Where as WAS of 0.76

for Ludhiana respondents from the income class of up to Rs. 10,000 shows that 68.18 percent

respondents from this income group agree to the statement. Significant value of chi-square also

explains that average perception of respondents significantly varies in case of total respondents and

Ludhiana respondents, co-efficient of contingency also shows high association among the

respondents of this city where as in Bathinda respondents have similar opinion regarding the

123

statement. In other words Income has positive implication towards the perception of respondents of

Ludhiana only.




Bathinda

Matric 0.27 33.64 6

(8.45) 12

(16.90) 16

(22.54) 31

(43.66) 6

(8.45) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.39 30.97 6

(4.84) 23

(18.55) 24

(19.35) 59

(47.58) 12

(9.68) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.51 27.07 1

(1.82) 11

(20.00) 6

(10.91) 33

(60.00) 4

(7.27) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.68 29.62 13

(22.81) 7

(12.28) 22

(38.60) 15

(26.32) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.70 29.46 3

(2.50) 22

(18.33) 11

(9.17) 56

(46.67) 28

(23.33) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.62 32.32 4

(5.48) 13

(17.81) 6

(8.22) 34

(46.58) 16

(21.92) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.45 32.46 6

(4.69) 25

(19.53) 23

(17.97) 53

(41.41) 21

(16.41) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.54 30.51 9

(3.69) 45

(18.44) 35

(14.34) 115

(47.13) 40

(16.39) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.57 30.25 5

(3.91) 24

(18.75) 12

(9.38) 67

(52.34) 20

(15.62) 128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 7.32 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 0.83 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 5.51 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 0.13 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 5.35 (df : 8) C = 0.10; F = 0.41 (df : 2, 497)


All the respondents with different educational levels agree to the statement. Table 4.24

describes that 67.96 percent postgraduate respondents with 0.57 WAS agree to the statement. From

Bathinda WAS of 0.51 for postgraduate respondents also supported similar inference. Whereas in

Ludhiana 0.70 WAS shows that majority (70 percent) graduate respondents agree to the statement.

Co-efficient of variation shows the variation in the responses of respondents which is maximum

33.64 percent for matriculate respondents of Bathinda and in Ludhiana it is 32.32 percent in case of

postgraduate respondents. Statistically values of F-test and chi-square results acceptance of null

hypothesis which means that respondent‟s opinion does not vary with his/her educational level.

Hence education does not have any significant impact on the perception of respondents of both the

cities.

124


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that majority of the variables like age, lady of

household, number of children and education of the respondent does not have any significant

influence on their perception but occupation affects the Bathinda respondents significantly and

income and gender have significant influence on the perception of Ludhiana respondents. Hence, the

data concludes that respondents of different age, gender and occupation show more concern with the

statement.

4.2.4 Children Play Role of Mediator in Conflicts of Parents

Another important factor for studying the role of children in household buying is to study

that children play role of mediator when parents have any type of conflict during the purchase of any

household product. Although serious conflicts in household buying decision are rare, but still some

form of family conflicts are highly probable because of individual preferences. When such situation

arises children play the role of mediator in any type of conflict in the decisions of parents because

they have the knowledge of more options and alternatives available in the market.

Table 4.25 Children Play Role of Mediator in Conflicts of Parents:



Bathinda 0.39 28.32 9

(3.60) 36

(14.40) 76

(30.40) 106

(42.20) 23

(9.20) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.65 27.12 7

(2.80) 30

(12.00) 51

(20.40) 118

(47.20) 44

(17.60) 250

(100)

Total 0.52 28.12 16

(3.20) 66

(13.20) 127

(25.40) 224

(44.80) 67

(13.40) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 12.94 *(df:14) C= 0.16 , t = 2.925 **(df: 498)



While analyzing the total data (500 respondents) based on the above item, Table 4.25 shows

that majority 51.60 percent respondents from Bathinda and 64.80 percent respondents from

125

Ludhiana agree to it. Overall 0.52 WAS also signifying the statement. 0.39 value of WAS for

Bathinda shows that as compared to Ludhiana, respondents of Bathinda agreed less to the statement.

Significant value of chi-square and t-test shows the significant differences in the responses of

respondents of both the cities. Co-efficient of contingency 0.16 shows good association among the

respondents of these two cities.


Age Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 35 0.47 25.36 2

(13.33) 6

(40.00) 5

(33.33) 2

(13.33) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.25 30.15 4

(4.55) 15

(17.05) 31

(35.23) 31

(35.23) 7

(7.95) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.50 28.00 5

(4.35) 13

(11.30) 30

(26.09) 54

(46.96) 13

(11.30) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.38 24.26 6

(18.75) 9

(28.12) 16

(50.00) 1

(3.12) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.72 29.84 2

(8.00)

8 (32.00)

8 (32.00)

7 (28.00)

25 (100)

35 – 40 0.65 28.77 2

(2.41) 12

(14.46) 17

(20.48) 34

(40.96) 18

(21.69) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.63 24.52 1

(1.01) 13

(13.13) 20

(20.20) 53

(53.54) 12

(12.12) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.65 28.22 2

(4.65) 5

(11.63) 6

(13.95) 23

(53.49) 7

(16.28) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.62 28.65 2

(5.00) 2

(5.00) 14

(35.00) 13

(32.50) 9

(22.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.44 29.94 6

(3.51) 27

(15.79) 48

(28.07) 65

(38.01) 25

(14.62) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.56 26.40 6

(2.80) 26

(12.15) 50

(23.36) 107

(50.00) 25

(11.68) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.53 27.20 2

(2.67) 11

(14.67) 15

(20.00) 39

(52.00) 8

(10.67) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 10.22 (df : 12) C = 0.20; F = 1.11 (df : 3, 246)

Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 17.34 (df : 12) C = 0.25; F = 0.06 (df : 3, 246) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 15.80 (df : 12) C = 0.18; F = 0.58 (df : 3, 496)


Age wise analysis of the respondents for the statement shown in Table 4.26 depicts that

among all the age groups, total respondents show the highest WAS of 0.62 from the age group of up

to 35 years and city wise analysis shows highest WAS of 0.50 for Bathinda respondents from the age

category of 40-45 years and from Ludhiana WAS 0.72 for respondents up to 35 years of age

126

explains that majority of the respondents from these age categories either agree or strongly agree to

the statement but statistically insignificant values of chi-square and F-test explain that respondents

opinions do not depend on their age and a few variations are just because of sample fluctuations.


Occupation Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Business 0.28 28.05 2

(2.06) 18

(18.56) 35

(36.08) 35

(36.08) 7

(7.22) 97

(100)

Service 0.46 28.32 7

(4.58) 18

(11.76) 41

(26.80) 71

(46.41) 16

(10.46) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.64 27.75 4

(2.65) 20

(13.25) 30

(19.87) 70

(46.36) 27

(17.88) 151

(100)

Service 0.67 26.43 3

(3.03) 10

(10.10) 21

(21.21) 48

(48.48) 17

(17.17) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.50 28.29 6

(2.42) 38

(15.32) 65

(26.21) 105

(42.34) 34

(13.71) 248

(100)

Service 0.54 27.97 10

(3.97) 28

(11.11) 62

(24.60) 119

(47.22) 33

(13.10) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 6.80 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 1.517 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 0.65 (df : 4) C = 0.05; t = 0.242 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.44 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.540 (df : 498)


Occupation wise analysis of the respondents show that although all the respondents of

different occupational categories – business or service have almost similar opinion (deduced from

insignificant value of chi-square and t-test) but respondents from service category agree more to the

statement with highest WAS of 0.54 for total respondents, 0.67 for Ludhiana respondents and 0.46

for Bathinda respondents. Hence, table 4.27 concludes that respondents‟ perception does not depend

on their occupation in both the cities.

127

Table 4.28

Children Play Role of Mediator in Conflicts of Parents:



Bathinda

Male 0.34 29.34 9

(4.69) 26

(13.54) 64

(33.33) 76

(39.58) 17

(8.85) 192

(100)

Female 0.55 25.07 10

(17.24) 12

(20.69) 30

(51.72) 6

(10.34) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.53 28.33 5

(3.07) 25

(15.34) 32

(19.63) 80

(49.08) 21

(12.88) 163

(100)

Female 0.86 24.61 2

(2.30) 5

(5.75) 19

(21.84) 38

(43.68) 23

(26.44) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.43 28.86 14

(3.94) 51

(14.37) 96

(27.04) 156

(43.94) 38

(10.70) 355

(100)

Female 0.74 25.13 2

(1.38) 15

(10.34) 31

(21.38) 68

(46.90) 29

(20.00) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 7.14 (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 1.519 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 10.87* (df : 4) C = 0.20; t = 2.558* (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 11.52* (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 3.261** (df : 498)




Table 4.28 shows the gender wise analysis of the statement and it is found that both the

genders are in favour of the statement but female respondents are more agreed to the statement.

Higher WAS of 0.74 for total female respondents, 0.55 for female respondents of Bathinda and 0.86

for female respondents of Ludhiana also support similar inference. Statistical tests in case of

Bathinda show the insignificant results but Ludhiana shows the significant value of chi-square and t-

test which explains that gender has a significant impact on Ludhiana respondents. Co-efficient of

variation also shows that female respondents are more consistent as compared to their male

counterparts in both the cities.

128




Bathinda

Working 0.54 23.16 4

(14.29) 7

(25.00) 15

(53.57) 2

(7.14) 28

(100)


(4.05) 32

(14.41) 69

(31.08) 91

(40.99) 21

(9.46) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.81 22.83 1

(1.59) 3

(4.76) 16

(25.40) 30

(47.62) 13

(20.63) 63

(100)


(3.21) 27

(14.44) 35

(18.72) 88

(47.06) 31

(16.58) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.73 23.32 1

(1.10) 7

(7.69) 23

(25.27) 45

(49.45) 15

(16.48) 91

(100)


(3.67) 59

(14.43) 104

(25.43) 179

(43.77) 52

(12.71) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 2.51 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 0.959 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.59 (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 1.625 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.42 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 2.426* (df : 498)



Majority of respondents from both the cities who have working ladies at their home agree to

the statement more as compared to those respondents who do not have working lady at their home.

Higher WAS of 0.54 from Bathinda city and 0.81 from Ludhiana city for respondents who have

working ladies at their home in Table 4.29 signify the result. Further, the variation in data item

reveals that respondent‟s who have working ladies at their home are more consistent as compared to

respondent‟s who have housewives at their home (deduced from value of co-efficient of variation).

Statistical tests show the insignificant value of chi-square and t-test in both the cities but significant

value of t-test in case of total number of respondents show that lady of household(working or not)

has significant influence on respondents perception only when they are combined.

129




Bathinda

One - 0.36 27.27 7

(50.00)

5

(35.71)

2

(14.29)

14

(100)

Two 0.42 28.07 5

(3.42) 20

(13.70) 43

(29.45) 64

(43.84) 14

(9.59) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.46 27.75 4

(4.44) 9

(10.00) 28

(31.11) 40

(44.44) 9

(10.00) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.46 18.21 1

(7.69)

5

(38.46)

7

(53.85)

13

(100)

Two 0.63 26.17 3

(1.90) 21

(13.29) 30

(18.99) 81

(51.27) 23

(14.56) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.71 30.19 4

(5.06) 8

(10.13) 16

(20.25) 30

(37.97) 21

(26.58) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.04 25.99 8

(29.63)

10

(37.04)

9

(33.33)

27

(100)

Two 0.53 27.20 8

(2.63) 41

(13.49) 73

(24.01) 145

(47.70) 37

(12.17) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.57 29.13 8

(4.73) 17

(10.06) 44

(26.04) 70

(41.42) 30

(17.75) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 18.61* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 4.63* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 13.99 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 0.39 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 19.05* (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 3.54* (df : 2, 497)


While analyzing the statement with respondents who have one, two and three/more children

in Table 4.30 it is found that majority of the respondents who have three/more children in both the

cities agree to the statement followed by those who have two children and least agreed are those who

have only one child (deduced from value of WAS). WAS is positive in all the cases except the

Bathinda respondents who have only one child (-0.36) which shows that they disagreed in majority.

Significant values of chi-square and F-test for Bathinda respondents show that number of children

have significant impact on respondents‟ responses whereas it shows insignificant impact on

Ludhiana respondents. In other words, Ludhiana respondents‟ perception does not change with the

number of children they have.

130




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.30 27.88 3

(2.80) 16

(14.95) 43

(40.19) 36

(33.64) 9

(8.41) 107

(100)

10-20 0.39 30.38 5

(5.32) 14

(14.89) 24

(25.53) 41

(43.62) 10

(10.64) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.59 24.51 1

(2.04) 6

(12.24) 9

(18.37) 29

(59.18) 4

(8.16) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.77 30.24 5

(7.58) 4

(6.06) 10

(15.15) 29

(43.94) 18

(27.27) 66

(100)

10-20 0.61 27.42 1

(1.15) 14

(16.09) 18

(20.69) 39

(44.83) 15

(17.24) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.60 24.44 1

(1.03) 12

(12.37) 23

(23.71) 50

(51.55) 11

(11.34) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.48 29.60 8

(4.62) 20

(11.56) 53

(30.64) 65

(37.57) 27

(15.61) 173

(100)

10-20 0.50 27.14 6

(3.31) 28

(15.47) 42

(23.20) 80

(44.20) 25

(13.81) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.60 24.44 2

(1.37) 18

(12.33) 32

(21.92) 79

(54.11) 15

(10.27) 146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 13.49 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 1.56 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 18.20* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 0.70 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Income) Chi^2 = 13.26 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.62 (df : 2, 497) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.


WAS of 0.59 in Table 4.31 shows that majority of the Bathinda respondents (67.34 percent)

from the income category of above Rs. 20,000 agree to the statement. Whereas in case of Ludhiana

respondents, WAS of 0.77 from the income category of up to Rs. 10,000 agree to the statement

more. Co-efficient of variation shows the variation in responses of the respondents which is 30.38

percent from the income category of Rs. 10,000 - 20,000 in case of Bathinda respondents and in

Ludhiana 30.24 percent variation can be seen from the respondents of income category of up to Rs.

10,000. Statistical value of chi-square is significant only in case of Ludhiana which explains that the

respondents of Ludhiana city from different income groups have different opinions regarding the

statement. But Bathinda respondents have insignificant differences in their responses with respect to

income. Further insignificant value of F-test in both the cities accepts the null hypothesis that

respondents‟ perception does not depend on their monthly family income.

131




Bathinda

Matric 0.27 24.46 2

(2.82) 7

(9.86) 35

(49.30) 24

(33.80) 3

(4.23) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.35 31.64 7

(5.65) 20

(16.13) 33

(26.61) 50

(40.32) 14

(11.29) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.64 24.18 9

(16.36) 8

(14.55) 32

(58.18) 6

(10.91) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.65 27.95 1

(1.75) 7

(12.28) 16

(28.07) 20

(35.09) 13

(22.81) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.64 29.12 5

(4.17) 16

(13.33) 19

(15.83) 57

(47.50) 23

(19.17) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.66 23.22 1

(1.37) 7

(9.59) 16

(21.92) 41

(56.16) 8

(10.96) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.44 26.74 3

(2.34) 14

(10.94) 51

(39.84) 44

(34.38) 16

(12.50) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.50 30.57 12

(4.92) 36

(14.75) 52

(21.31) 107

(43.85) 37

(15.16) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.65 23.56 1

(0.78) 16

(12.50) 24

(18.75) 73

(57.03) 14

(10.94) 128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 25.70** (df : 8) C = 0.31; F = 2.48 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 10.94 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 0.01 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 28.87** (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 1.61 (df : 2, 497)



Statistically significant value of chi-square in case of Bathinda respondents and co-efficient

of contingency show that education has a significant impact on the opinion of respondents. Table

4.32 shows that majority postgraduate respondents of Bathinda with highest WAS of 0.64 agree with

the statement followed by graduates than matriculate respondents. But in Ludhiana all the

respondents from different educational levels agree to the statement equally as WAS is 0.65, 0.64

and 0.66 in three educational categories. Hence, this table concludes that education has a significant

impact on the opinion of Bathinda respondents as WAS has much variation in all the three

educational categories whereas in Ludhiana all the respondents of different education levels have

similar opinion regarding the statement.

2NH

132


Comparative analysis of all the factors on statement concludes that age, occupation and lady

of household does not have any significant impact on Bathinda and Ludhiana respondents‟

perception whereas gender and monthly family income of the respondents have significant impact on

Ludhiana‟s respondents and number of children and education plays a significant role on Bathinda

respondents‟ perception.

4.2.5 Children can Influence Purchase Decisions of Parents

When child respondents of both the cities were asked to express their opinion for the

statement that they can easily influence purchase decisions of their parents, it is found that majority

of the total respondents (65.20 percent) agree to the statement whereas only 17.80 percent disagree

to the statement.

Table 4.33 Children can Influence Purchase Decisions of Parents:

All Child Respondents

Group/Sub Group WAS CV SD D I A SA Total

Bathinda 0.47 27.95 7

(2.80) 44

(17.60) 45

(18.00) 133

(53.20) 21

(8.40) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.56 23.88 5

(2.00)

33

(13.20)

40

(16.00)

161

(64.40)

11

(4.40)

250

(100)

Total 0.51 25.93 12

(2.40) 77

(15.40) 85

(17.00) 294

(58.80) 32

(6.40) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 7.99(df:4) C=0.13, t=1.31(df:498) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.

Table 4.33 depicts WAS 0.47 of Bathinda and 0.56 of Ludhiana also show the same result.

Whereas co-efficient of variation shows that much variation can be seen from the respondents of

Bathinda respondents as it is 27.95 percent as compared to Ludhiana which is 23.88 percent

Insignificant value of chi-square test and t-test shows negative association between the child

respondents of two cities.

133

Table 4.34

Children can Influence Purchase Decisions of Parents: Gender Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Male 0.39 28.91 6

(3.97) 28

(18.54) 27

(17.88) 81

(53.64) 9

(5.96) 151

(100)

Female 0.59 25.91 1

(1.01) 16

(16.16) 18

(18.18) 52

(52.53) 12

(12.12) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.51 25.93 4

(3.42) 17

(14.53) 16

(13.68) 75

(64.10) 5

(4.27) 117

(100)

Female 0.60 21.67 1

(0.75) 16

(12.03) 24

(18.05) 86

(64.66) 6

(4.51) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.44 27.62 10

(3.73) 45

(16.79) 43

(16.04) 156

(58.21) 14

(5.22) 268

(100)

Female 0.59 23.68 2

(0.86) 32

(13.79) 42

(18.10) 138

(59.48) 18

(7.76) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.79 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 1.584 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 3.26 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 0.819 (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 6.58 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 1.868 (df : 498)


Gender wise analysis of the statement in Table 4.34 shows that WAS is higher for female

respondents in both the cities. WAS 0.59 and 0.60 for female respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana

city show that 64.65 percent female respondents of Bathinda and 69.17 percent female respondents

of Ludhiana agree to the statement. Further, the variation in the data reveals that the female

respondents are more consistent than their male counterparts in both the cities, as female respondents

have co-efficient of variation equal to 25.91 percent (Bathinda) and 21.67 percent (Ludhiana) as

compared to male who have 28.91 percent (Bathinda) and 25.93 percent (Ludhiana). Statistical tests

show the insignificant value of chi-square and t-test which explains that the gender in both the cities

does not have any significant impact on the statement.

134


Age Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 10 0.72 26.34 2

(4.00)

5

(10.00)

6

(12.00)

29

(58.00)

8

(16.00)

50

(100)

10 - 13 0.42 27.19 2

(1.98) 18

(17.82) 24

(23.76) 50

(49.50) 7

(6.93) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.39 28.91 3

(3.03) 21

(21.21) 15

(15.15) 54

(54.55) 6

(6.06) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.63 24.24 2

(3.92)

5

(9.80)

6

(11.76)

35

(68.63)

3

(5.88)

51

(100)

10 - 13 0.48 27.30 3

(2.94) 18

(17.65) 14

(13.73) 61

(59.80) 6

(5.88) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.61 19.39 10

(10.31) 20

(20.62) 65

(67.01) 2

(2.06) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.67 25.34 4

(3.96)

10

(9.90)

12

(11.88)

64

(63.37)

11

(10.89)

101

(100)

10 - 13 0.45 27.25 5

(2.46) 36

(17.73) 38

(18.72) 111

(54.68) 13

(6.40) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.50 24.57 3

(1.53) 31

(15.82) 35

(17.86) 119

(60.71) 8

(4.08) 196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 11.06 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 2.14 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 10.66 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 0.76 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 12.26 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 2.10 (df : 2, 497)


Table 4.35 shows the age wise analysis of child respondents. WAS of 0.72 from Bathinda

and 0.63 from Ludhiana shows that children below 10 years have more say at their houses in both

the cities as 74 percent respondents from Bathinda and 74.51 percent from Ludhiana of this age

category agree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows the variation in the responses of the

child respondents and it is found that from Bathinda it is the age category of above 13 years and in

Ludhiana it is from the age group of 10-13 years where maximum variation can be seen.

Insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in both the cities show that respondents‟ perception has

insignificant influence of age as respondents of different age have the similar opinion regarding the

statement.

135


Class Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.86 23.58 1

(7.14)

1

(7.14)

10

(71.43)

2

(14.29)

14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.52 26.70 3

(2.08) 22

(15.28) 30

(20.83) 75

(52.08) 14

(9.72) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.33 30.03 3

(3.26) 22

(23.91) 14

(15.22) 48

(52.17) 5

(5.43) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.55 25.92 2

(5.00)

4

(10.00)

6

(15.00)

26

(65.00)

2

(5.00)

40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.54 25.42 3

(2.13) 22

(15.60) 20

(14.18) 88

(62.41) 8

(5.67) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.61 19.11 7

(10.14) 14

(20.29) 47

(68.12) 1

(1.45) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.63 25.62 3

(5.56)

4

(7.41)

7

(12.96)

36

(66.67)

4

(7.41)

54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.53 26.06 6

(2.11) 44

(15.44) 50

(17.54) 163

(57.19) 22

(7.72) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.45 25.80 3

(1.86) 29

(18.01) 28

(17.39) 95

(59.01) 6

(3.73) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 10.99 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 2.35 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 7.87 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 0.16 (df : 2, 247) Total (Class) Chi^2 = 9.43 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.91 (df : 2, 497)


Higher WAS of 0.86 for Bathinda respondents and 0.63 for total number of respondents for

the children who are studying in class up to 5th and 0.61 WAS for child respondents of Ludhiana

studying in class above 8th shows that majority of respondents from these class categories agree to

the statement. However, coefficient of variation shows that Bathinda respondents studying in class

above 8th

and Ludhiana respondents studying in class up to 5th shows more variation in their

responses. Insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in both the cities explain that children

studying in different classes have indifferent opinions regarding the statement. Hence, Table 4.36

concludes that the class of a respondent does not have a significant influence on his/her opinion.

136


Monthly Pocket Money Wise Analysis of Child Respondents

Group/Sub Group WAS CV SD D I A SA Total

Bathinda

Nil 0.41 30.79 5

(6.02) 13

(15.66) 16

(19.28) 41

(49.40) 8

(9.64) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.53 24.08 1

(1.32) 11

(14.47) 15

(19.74) 45

(59.21) 4

(5.26) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.47 28.24 1

(1.10) 20

(21.98) 14

(15.38) 47

(51.65) 9

(9.89) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.24 26.54 2

(4.35) 7

(15.22) 15

(32.61) 22

(47.83)

46 (100)

Up to 100 0.64 21.70 1

(1.02) 13

(13.27) 9

(9.18) 72

(73.47) 3

(3.06) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.62 23.76 2

(1.89) 13

(12.26) 16

(15.09) 67

(63.21) 8

(7.55) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.35 29.55 7

(5.43) 20

(15.50) 31

(24.03) 63

(48.84) 8

(6.20) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.59 22.84 2

(1.15) 24

(13.79) 24

(13.79) 117

(67.24) 7

(4.02) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.55 25.92 3

(1.52) 33

(16.75) 30

(15.23) 114

(57.87) 17

(8.63) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 8.82 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.29 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 20.83** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 4.14** (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 19.77* (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 2.96 (df : 2, 497)

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

Monthly pocket wise analysis of respondents in Table 4.37 shows overall WAS of 0.59 for

total respondents 0.53 for Bathinda respondents and 0.64 for Ludhiana respondents who are getting

pocket money up to Rs. 100, depicts that majority of the respondents of this group agree to the

statement. Variation in responses can be seen from the respondents who are getting no pocket money

in both he cities. Statistically significant value of chi-square test and F-test in Ludhiana shows that

respondents getting different amount of pocket money have different opinions regarding the

statement and it is also supported by co-efficient of contingency which shows high value of 0.28.

Whereas insignificant value of chi-square and F-test for Bathinda respondents proves that pocket

money does not have any significant impact on the respondents of Bathinda.

137


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that age, gender and class do not have any

significant influence on the respondents of both the cities but monthly pocket money have significant

impact only on the opinion of respondents of Ludhiana city.

4.2.6 Parents Allow Child to Buy Daily Need Products

The second factor for studying the role of children in household buying decision is fb2 which

studies whether the parents allow them to buy daily need products of their choice or not.

Table 4.38 Parents Allow Child to Buy Daily Need Products:


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

Bathinda 0.53 28.61 7

(2.80) 45

(18.00) 36

(14.40) 132

(52.80) 30

(12.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.28 36.28 29

(11.60) 41

(16.40) 36

(14.40) 119

(47.60) 25

(10.00) 250

(100)

Total 0.41 32.55 36

(7.20) 86

(17.20) 72

(14.40) 251

(50.20) 55

(11.00) 500

(100)

Chi^2=14.76 ** (df:4) C = 0.17, t = 2.549 *(df:498)



Overall WAS of 0.41 in Table 4.38 depicts that majority of the respondents 61.20 percent

agree to the statement. While making a comparative study of Bathinda and Ludhiana city it is found

that Bathinda city has much higher WAS of 0.53 as compared to Ludhiana which shows that

although majority of the respondents 64.80 percent from Bathinda and 57.60 percent from Ludhiana

agree to the statement but number of respondents who disagree to the statement are more in

Ludhiana (28 percent) as compared to only 20.80 percent of Bathinda who disagreed with it. Co-

138

efficient of variation 36.28 percent from Ludhiana city as compared to 28.61 percent from Bathinda

shows that there is much variation in the responses of respondents of Ludhiana. Further significant

results of chi-square and F-test explain that respondents of both the cities have different opinions

regarding the statement.

Table 4.39

Parents Allow Child to Buy Daily Need Products:

Gender Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Male 0.53 27.48 3

(1.99) 26

(17.22) 27

(17.88) 78

(51.66) 17

(11.26) 151

(100)

Female 0.54 30.23 4

(4.04) 19

(19.19) 9

(9.09) 54

(54.55) 13

(13.13) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.29 36.17 13

(11.11) 20

(17.09) 16

(13.68) 56

(47.86) 12

(10.26) 117

(100)

Female 0.27 36.70 16

(12.03) 21

(15.79) 20

(15.04) 63

(47.37) 13

(9.77) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.43 31.49 16

(5.97)

46

(17.16)

43

(16.04)

134

(50.00)

29

(10.82)

268

(100)

Female 0.38 34.02 20

(8.62)

40

(17.24)

29

(12.50)

117

(50.43)

26

(11.21)

232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.51 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.042 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 0.21 (df : 4) C = 0.03; t = 0.132 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 2.32 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 0.417 (df : 498)


Gender wise analysis of child respondents shows that both the gender equally agree to the

statement (Table 4.39) as there is marginal difference between WAS of male and female

respondents. Bathinda has 0.54 WAS for female respondents as compared to male who has 0.53

WAS. Same trend can be seen in Ludhiana where female respondents have 0.27 WAS as compared

to male with WAS of 0.29. Statistical value of chi-square and t-test explains that respondents of

139

different gender have similar opinion regarding the statement in both the cities and a few variations

are due to sample fluctuations.

Table 4.40

Parents Allow Child to Buy Daily Need Products:



Bathinda

Up to 10 0.34 32.04 1

(2.00) 15

(30.00) 5

(10.00) 24

(48.00) 5

(10.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.55 27.61 3

(2.97) 14

(13.86) 21

(20.79) 50

(49.50) 13

(12.87) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.61 27.42 3

(3.03)

16

(16.16)

10

(10.10)

58

(58.59)

12

(12.12)

99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.18 39.62 7

(13.73) 11

(21.57) 4

(7.84) 24

(47.06) 5

(9.80) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.31 35.65 10

(9.80) 18

(17.65) 16

(15.69) 46

(45.10) 12

(11.76) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.30 35.45 12

(12.37)

12

(12.37)

16

(16.49)

49

(50.52)

8

(8.25)

97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.26 35.89 8

(7.92) 26

(25.74) 9

(8.91) 48

(47.52) 10

(9.90) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.43 31.78 13

(6.40) 32

(15.76) 37

(18.23) 96

(47.29) 25

(12.32) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.45 31.59 15

(7.65)

28

(14.29)

26

(13.27)

107

(54.59)

20

(10.20)

196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 11.38 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 1.20 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 5.28 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.24 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 11.94 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 1.14 (df : 2, 497)


Majority of the respondents 64.79 percent from the age category of above 13 years agree that

their parents allow them to buy daily need products of their choice. Only 21.94 percent do not agree

to it. Table 4.40 shows WAS (0.45) which signifies the result. WAS 0.61 from Bathinda respondents

from the same age category demonstrates respondents favour to the statement in majority. But

Ludhiana city show 0.31 WAS from the age group of 10-13 years where 56.86 percent respondents

agree to the statement whereas 27.45 percent disagree to it. It is found that there is much variation in

the responses of children who are below 10 years (deduced from value of co-efficient of variation).

140

Chi-square value and F-test is insignificant in all the cases and hence, accepts null hypothesis which

means that age does not have any significant influence on the respondents‟ perception. Therefore,

respondents of all age groups from both the cities agree to the statement similarly.




Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.50 20.86 2

(14.29) 3

(21.43) 9

(64.29)

14 (100)

5th – 8th 0.49 30.09 5

(3.47) 28

(19.44) 21

(14.58) 72

(50.00) 18

(12.50) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.61 27.15 2

(2.17)

15

(16.30)

12

(13.04)

51

(55.43)

12

(13.04)

92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.05 40.00 6

(15.00) 9

(22.50) 4

(10.00) 19

(47.50) 2

(5.00) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.28 36.59 16

(11.35) 25

(17.73) 18

(12.77) 67

(47.52) 15

(10.64) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.41 33.14 7

(10.14)

7

(10.14)

14

(20.29)

33

(47.83)

8

(11.59)

69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.17 35.65 6

(11.11) 11

(20.37) 7

(12.96) 28

(51.85) 2

(3.70) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.39 33.33 21

(7.37) 53

(18.60) 39

(13.68) 139

(48.77) 33

(11.58) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.52 29.83 9

(5.59)

22

(13.66)

26

(16.15)

84

(52.17)

20

(12.42)

161

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 4.25 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 0.42 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 6.93 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 1.12 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Class) Chi^2 = 7.33 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 2.17 (df : 2, 497)


While analyzing the child respondents according to their class in which they are studying it is

found that majority of the respondents studying in above 8th class agree to the statement in both the

cities. 0.61 WAS from Bathinda, 0.41 from Ludhiana and 0.52 from total respondents signifies the

result. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in both the cities accepts the null

hypothesis that respondents of both the cities have similar opinion regarding the statement. Hence,

Table 4.41 concludes that the class of a respondent does not have significant influence on his/her

opinion.

141




Bathinda

Nil 0.55 28.17 2

(2.41) 15

(18.07) 11

(13.25) 45

(54.22) 10

(12.05) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.42 28.95 2

(2.63) 15

(19.74) 15

(19.74) 37

(48.68) 7

(9.21) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.60 28.61 3

(3.30)

15

(16.48)

10

(10.99)

50

(54.95)

13

(14.29)

91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.70 23.78 6

(13.04) 9

(19.57) 24

(52.17) 7

(15.22) 46

(100)

Up to 100 - 0.31 48.33 26

(26.53) 21

(21.43) 12

(12.24) 35

(35.71) 4

(4.08) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.64 26.37 3

(2.83)

14

(13.21)

15

(14.15)

60

(56.60)

14

(13.21)

106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.60 26.67 2

(1.55) 21

(16.28) 20

(15.50) 69

(53.49) 17

(13.18) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.01 40.86 28

(16.09) 36

(20.69) 27

(15.52) 72

(41.38) 11

(6.32) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.62 27.35 6

(3.05)

29

(14.72)

25

(12.69)

110

(55.84)

27

(13.71)

97

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 3.94 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 0.71 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 45.55** (df : 8) C = 0.39; F = 22.76** (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 41.76** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 17.90** (df : 2, 497)


Table 4.42 shows that some of the respondents 17.77 percent who are getting pocket money

above Rs. 100 do not agree to the statement whereas 69.55 percent agree to it. WAS is positive in all

the cases except the respondents of Ludhiana who are getting pocket money up to Rs. 100 (-0.31)

who disagree in majority. Bathinda respondents show WAS of 0.60 from the category of above 100

and Ludhiana respondents from the category of respondents who are getting no pocket money has

WAS 0.70 which signifies that majority of the respondents from these categories agree to the

statement. Statistical value of chi-square and F-test shows that there is insignificant difference in

Bathinda respondents perception with respect to monthly pocket money but total number of

respondents and respondents of Ludhiana have different opinion regarding the statement. Co-

efficient of contingency also shows good deal of association among the respondents of Ludhiana

city.

142


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that gender and age of the respondents do not

have any significant impact on respondents of both the cities but when we analyze the statement

according to monthly pocket money of the respondent. It is found that it has significant impact on

Ludhiana respondents. Their opinion differs with monthly pocket money they are getting from their

parents because it increases their buying capacity and role in household buying decisions.

4.2.7 Parents Appreciate the Things Purchased by a Child

The next important factors fb4 is related to see whether parents encourage the child by

appreciating things purchased by them or not.

Table 4.43 Parents Appreciate the Things Purchased by a Child:



Bathinda 0.62 22.38 7

(2.80) 8

(3.20) 81

(32.40) 130

(52.00) 24

(9.60) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.59 23.96 3

(1.20) 27

(10.80) 67

(26.80) 126

(50.40) 27

(10.80) 250

(100)

Total 0.61 23.27 10

(2.00) 35

(7.00) 148

(29.60) 256

(51.20) 51

(10.20) 500

(100)

Chi^2=13.48 ** (df:4) C=0.16, t=0.480 (df:498) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.


Overall WAS 0.61 for total respondents in Table 4.43 shows that majority of the respondents

61.40 percent agree that their Parents appreciate the things purchased by them where as only 9

percent child respondents disagree to it. WAS is above 0.50 in both the cities, shows that majority of

the respondents from both the cities agree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows

maximum variation in the responses of Ludhiana respondents. Significant value of chi-square test

and co-efficient of contingency shows that respondents of both the cities are highly associated with

each other.

143

Table 4.44

Parents Appreciate the Things Purchased by a Child:



Bathinda

Male 0.50 24.00 6

(3.97) 5

(3.31) 60

(39.74) 68

(45.03) 12

(7.95) 151

(100)

Female 0.82 18.85 1

(1.01) 3

(3.03) 21

(21.21) 62

(62.63) 12

(12.12) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.57 23.25 1

(0.85) 13

(11.11) 31

(26.50) 62

(52.99) 10

(8.55) 117

(100)

Female 0.60 24.72 2

(1.50) 14

(10.53) 36

(27.07) 64

(48.12) 17

(12.78) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.53 23.80 7

(2.61) 18

(6.72) 91

(33.96) 130

(48.51) 22

(8.21) 268

(100)

Female 0.69 22.49 3

(1.29) 17

(7.33) 57

(24.57) 126

(54.31) 29

(12.50) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 12.87* (df : 4) C = 0.22; t = 3.231** (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.57 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.265 (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 7.91 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 2.196* (df : 498)




Table 4.44 shows that WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases which means that both the male

and female respondents agree to the statement but female respondents show higher WAS of 0.69 for

total respondents 0.60 for Ludhiana and 0.82 for Bathinda which means that number of female

respondents is more who agree with the statement as compared to male respondents. However,

coefficient of variation shows more consistency in the responses of male respondents as compare to

female respondents in both the cities. Statistically significant value of chi-square and t-test explains

that the male and female respondents have different opinions regarding the statement in Bathinda

city, whereas the gender of respondent does not have any significant impact on the respondents of

Ludhiana city.

144




Bathinda

Up to 10 0.78 17.72 1

(2.00) 1

(2.00) 9

(18.00) 36

(72.00) 3

(6.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.61 22.44 2

(1.98) 4

(3.96) 36

(35.64) 48

(47.52) 11

(10.89) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.56 24.44 4

(4.04) 3

(3.03) 36

(36.36) 46

(46.46) 10

(10.10) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.57 23.81 1

(1.96) 4

(7.84) 16

(31.37) 25

(49.02) 5

(9.80) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.53 26.35 1

(0.98) 14

(13.73) 31

(30.39) 42

(41.18) 14

(13.73) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.66 21.86 1

(1.03) 9

(9.28) 20

(20.62) 59

(60.82) 8

(8.25) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.67 20.98 2

(1.98) 5

(4.95) 25

(24.75) 61

(60.40) 8

(7.92) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.57 24.37 3

(1.48) 18

(8.87) 67

(33.00) 90

(44.33) 25

(12.32) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.61 23.27 5

(2.55) 12

(6.12) 56

(28.57) 105

(53.57) 18

(9.18) 196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 11.02 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 1.28 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 9.28 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 0.58 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 9.43 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.50 (df : 2, 497)


The entire child respondents of different age categories agree that parents appreciate the

things purchased by them as WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases but it is higher 0.78 in case of

children below 10 years in Bathinda as 78 percent respondents belonging to this category agree to

the statement, while only 4 percent disagree to it. In Ludhiana it is age category of above 13 years,

where 69.07 percent respondents agree to the statement as compared to only 10.31 percent who

disagreed with higher WAS of 0.66. Co-efficient of variation shows that Bathinda respondents from

the age category of above 13 years and Ludhiana respondents from the age group of 10-13 years

show maximum variation in the responses of respondents. Statistically insignificant value of chi-

square and F-test also witnesses that respondents of different age groups have similar opinion in both

145

the cities. Hence, Table 4.45 concludes that age does not have any significant influence on the

perception of child respondents in both the cities.

Table 4.46

Parents Appreciate the Things Purchased by a Child:



Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.71 15.90 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 11

(78.57)

14 (100)

5th – 8th 0.62 22.59 4

(2.78) 4

(2.78) 49

(34.03) 72

(50.00) 15

(10.42) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.61 22.99 3

(3.26) 3

(3.26) 30

(32.61) 47

(51.09) 9

(9.78) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.55 23.66 1

(2.50) 3

(7.50) 12

(30.00) 21

(52.50) 3

(7.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.53 26.06 1

(0.71) 21

(14.89) 39

(27.66) 62

(43.97) 18

(12.77) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.72 19.89 1

(1.45) 3

(4.35) 16

(23.19) 43

(62.32) 6

(8.70) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.59 21.73 1

(1.85) 4

(7.41) 14

(25.93) 32

(59.26) 3

(5.56) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.58 24.30 5

(1.75) 25

(8.77) 88

(30.88) 134

(47.02) 33

(11.58) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.66 21.86 4

(2.48) 6

(3.73) 46

(28.57) 90

(55.90) 15

(9.32) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 6.23 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.10 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 10.99 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 1.20 (df : 2, 247) Total (Class) Chi^2 = 8.65 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 0.47 (df : 2, 497)


Table 4.46 shows that Bathinda respondents studying in class up to 5th shows higher WAS of

0.71 which signifies that 78.57 percent respondents from this category agree in majority. Whereas

Ludhiana respondents show WAS of 0.72 from the respondents studying in class above 8th which

agree (71.02 percent) to the statement in majority. But insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in

both the cities explain that children of different classes have similar opinion regarding the statement

in both the cities.

146




Bathinda

Nil 0.63 23.97 4

(4.82) 2

(2.41) 23

(27.71) 46

(55.42) 8

(9.64) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.53 21.81 1

(1.32) 5

(6.58) 28

(36.84) 37

(48.68) 5

(6.58) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.70 21.08 2

(2.20)

1

(1.10)

30

(32.97)

47

(51.65)

11

(12.09)

91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.41 16.72 2

(4.35) 23

(50.00) 21

(45.65)

46 (100)

Up to 100 0.48 27.01 2

(2.04) 18

(18.37) 16

(16.33) 55

(56.12) 7

(7.14) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.76 22.87 1

(0.94)

7

(6.60)

28

(26.42)

50

(47.17)

20

(18.87)

106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.55 22.25 4

(3.10) 4

(3.10) 46

(35.66) 67

(51.94) 8

(6.20) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.50 24.86 3

(1.72) 23

(13.22) 44

(25.29) 92

(52.87) 12

(6.90) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.74 22.19 3

(1.52)

8

(4.06)

58

(29.44)

97

(49.24)

31

(15.74)

197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 8.75 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.98 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 36.77** (df : 8) C = 0.36; F = 4.00** (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 28.67** (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 4.09* (df : 2, 497)



Table 4.47 shows the child respondents‟ perception according to the monthly pocket money

which they are getting from their parents. Significant value of WAS from the category of those

respondents who are getting pocket money above Rs. 100 from both the cities show that majority of

the respondents of this category agree to the statement in majority. Only a meager percentage of

respondents of this category disagree to the statement. Further statistical value of chi-square and F-

test explain that Bathinda respondents have similar opinion regarding the statement. But Ludhiana

respondents getting different pocket money have different opinions regarding the statement. Hence,

it is concluded that the pocket money has significant impact only on respondents of Ludhiana city.

Co-efficient of contingency also shows huge association among the respondents of Ludhiana.

147


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that the age and class of the respondents does

not have any significant impact on respondents‟ perception in both the cities but the gender of the

respondent has significant impact on the perception of respondents of Bathinda city and pocket

money changes the opinion of respondents in Ludhiana city.

4.2.8 Mostly Children are the Initiators and First Person to Demand the Product

The last factor for the achievement of Ist objective is to see whether most of the time the

child plays the role of an initiator and hence a first person to demand for the product.

Table 4.48 Children are the Initiators and First Person to Demand the Product:



Bathinda -0.01 31.44 10

(4.00) 71

(28.40) 90

(36.00) 69

(27.60) 10

(4.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.09 32.69 14

(5.60) 64

(25.60) 67

(26.80) 95

(38.00) 10

(4.00) 250

(100)

Total 0.04 31.91 24

(4.80) 135

(27.00) 157

(31.40) 164

(32.80) 20

(4.00) 500

(100)

Chi^2=8.52 (df:4) C=0.13, t=1.150 (df:498) Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages.

Table 4.48 shows very poor results about the statement where value of WAS is either

negative or very low. Overall 0.04 WAS of total respondents show that if 36.80 percent respondents

agree with the statement 31.80 percent disagreed and equally 31.40 percent showed indifferent

attitude towards the statement. City wise analysis also shows some results where negative WAS of -

0.01 from Bathinda respondents explain that majority of the respondents 32.40 percent either

disagreed or showed indifferent attitude (36.00 percent). Ludhiana also showed low level of WAS of

0.09 where only 42.00 percent agreed as compared to 31.20 percent who disagreed and 26.80

percent showed indifferent attitude. Co-efficient of variation shows that Bathinda respondents are

more consistent as compared to Ludhiana (deduced from value of co-efficient of variation).

Insignificant value of chi-square and t-test demonstrates that respondents of both the cities have

148

similar opinion regarding the statement. Value of co-efficient of contingency shows poor association

among the respondents of both the cities. Hence, Table 4.48 concludes that children are not the

initiators in the family, but their parents always take the initiative to buy or demand the product.




Bathinda

Male 0.10 30.65 7

(4.64) 34

(22.52) 53

(35.10) 51

(33.77) 6

(3.97) 151

(100)

Female - 0.17 31.80 3

(3.03) 37

(37.37) 37

(37.37) 18

(18.18) 4

(4.04) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.06 32.68 7

(5.98)

31

(26.50)

30

(25.64)

46

(39.32)

3

(2.56)

117

(100)

Female 0.12 32.37 7

(5.26) 33

(24.81) 37

(27.82) 49

(36.84) 7

(5.26) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.08 31.49 14

(5.22) 65

(24.25) 83

(30.97) 97

(36.19) 9

(3.36) 268

(100)

Female 0.00 32.67 10

(4.31) 70

(30.17) 74

(31.90) 67

(28.88) 11

(4.74) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 10.39* (df : 4) C = 0.20; t = 2.282* (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.47 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.475 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.49 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 0.990 (df : 498)


Overall lowest WAS of 0.00 from total female respondents and negative WAS of -0.17 from

female respondents of Bathinda explains that they disagree in majority with the statement. From

Ludhiana city male respondents with WAS of 0.06 disagreed to the statement more (32.48 percent)

as compared to female respondents (30.07 percent). Statistical results explain significantly

indifferent opinion of the male and female respondents of Ludhiana city and a few variation are just

because of sample fluctuation whereas, statistical value of chi-square, t-test and co-efficient of

contingency witness significant association between the male and female respondents of Bathinda

city. Hence, Table 4.49 concludes that gender has a significant influence on the opinion of

respondents of Bathinda only.

149




Bathinda

Up to 10

-0.22 33.09 3

(6.00) 18

(36.00) 17

(34.00) 11

(22.00) 1

(2.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 -0.05 32.20 4

(3.96) 31

(30.69) 37

(36.63) 24

(23.76) 5

(4.95) 101

(100)

Above 13

0.14 28.98 3

(3.03) 22

(22.22) 36

(36.36) 34

(34.34) 4

(4.04) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10

0.06 38.89 6

(11.76) 14

(27.45) 5

(9.80) 23

(45.10) 3

(5.88) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.15 29.84 5

(4.90) 20

(19.61) 36

(35.29) 37

(36.27) 4

(3.92) 102

(100)

Above 13

0.05 31.48 3

(3.09) 30

(30.93) 26

(26.80) 35

(36.08) 3

(3.09) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10

-0.08 36.99 9

(8.91) 32

(31.68) 22

(21.78) 34

(33.66) 4

(3.96) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.05 31.15 9

(4.43) 51

(25.12) 73

(35.96) 61

(30.05) 9

(4.43) 203

(100)

Above 13

0.10 30.00 6

(3.06) 52

(26.53) 62

(31.63) 69

(35.20) 7

(3.57) 196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 6.80 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 2.66* (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 16.96* (df : 8) C = 0.25; F = 0.26 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 11.29 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 1.10 (df : 2, 497)


Age wise analysis of the statement in Table 4.50 explains that children up to the age of 10

years show negative WAS of -0.08 which means that majority respondents 40.59 percent of this age

category disagree to the statement whereas only 37.62 percent agree with the statement. Highest

WAS of 0.10 from the age group of above 13 years explain that only 38.77 percent respondents of

this age group agree with the statement whereas 29.59 percent disagree and 31.63 percent show

indifferent attitude towards the statement. City wise analysis also shows that from Bathinda

respondents of up to 10 years show negative WAS of -0.22 which signifies that majority 42 percent

disagree with the statement, and WAS of 0.14 from the age category of above 13 years signifies that

from all the age categories respondents of this group agree with the statement in majority. Ludhiana

shows WAS of 0.15 from the age group of 10-13 years where 40.19 percent respondents agree to the

statements as compared to 24.51 percent who disagreed with the statement. Statistically significant

150

value of F-test in case of Bathinda respondents and significant value of chi-square in case of

Ludhiana respondents shows that respondents‟ perception has significant influence of age as

respondents of different age groups have different opinion. 0.25 value of co-efficient of contingency

for Ludhiana respondents also witnesses strong association among respondents of different age

groups.




Bathinda

Up to 5th - 0.29 40.59 2

(14.29) 5

(35.71) 2

(14.29) 5

(35.71)

14 (100)

5th – 8th - 0.08 31.16 6

(4.17) 43

(29.86) 56

(38.89) 34

(23.61) 5

(3.47) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.14 29.62 2

(2.17) 23

(25.00) 32

(34.78) 30

(32.61) 5

(5.43) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th - 0.05 42.71 6

(15.00) 12

(30.00) 3

(7.50) 16

(40.00) 3

(7.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.18 29.25 5

(3.55) 31

(21.99) 44

(31.21) 56

(39.72) 5

(3.55) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.00 32.00 3

(4.35) 21

(30.43) 20

(28.99) 23

(33.33) 2

(2.90) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th - 0.11 42.56 8

(14.81) 17

(31.48) 5

(9.26) 21

(38.89) 3

(5.56) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.05 30.49 11

(3.86) 74

(25.96) 100

(35.09) 90

(31.58) 10

(3.51) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.08 30.84 5

(3.11) 44

(27.33) 52

(32.30) 53

(32.92) 7

(4.35) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 10.57 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 2.17 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 17.98* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 1.19 (df : 2, 247) Total (Class) Chi^2 = 24.29** (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 0.80 (df : 2, 497)

Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentages. ** represent significant at one percent level of significance


Negative WAS of (-0.29) for Bathinda respondents, (-0.05) for Ludhiana respondents and (-

0.11) for total number of respondents studying in class up to 5th disagree to the statement in majority

(Table 4.51). CV also shows maximum variations in the responses of the respondents from this

category. Chi-square test is significant only in case of Ludhiana respondents and total number of

respondents which explain that respondents of this city studying in different classes have different

151

opinion regarding the statement whereas insignificant value of chi-square for Bathinda respondents

and insignificant value of F-test in all the cases show that respondents studying in different classes

have similar opinion regarding the statement.




Bathinda

Nil - 0.01 29.10 2

(2.41) 24

(28.92) 32

(38.55) 23

(27.71) 2

(2.41) 83

(100)

Up to 100 - 0.04 31.76 3

(3.95) 23

(30.26) 27

(35.53) 20

(26.32) 3

(3.95) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.02 32.78 5

(5.49) 24

(26.37) 31

(34.07) 26

(28.57) 5

(5.49) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.07 28.99 3

(6.52) 8

(17.39) 18

(39.13) 17

(36.96)

46 (100)

Up to 100 0.09 32.69 5

(5.10) 28

(28.57) 21

(21.43) 41

(41.84) 3

(3.06) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.10 33.87 6

(5.66) 28

(26.42) 28

(26.42) 37

(34.91) 7

(6.60) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.02 29.14 5

(3.88) 32

(24.81) 50

(38.76) 40

(31.01) 2

(1.55) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.03 32.34 8

(4.60) 51

(29.31) 48

(27.59) 61

(35.06) 6

(3.45) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.07 33.22 11

(5.58) 52

(26.40) 59

(29.95) 63

(31.98) 12

(6.09) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 2.63 (df : 8) C = 0.10; F = 0.09 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 9.87 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 0.02 (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 8.92 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 0.11 (df : 2, 497)


Table 4.52 reflects low level of WAS which demonstrates that respondents getting different

pocket money also not agreed to the statement up to the desired extent. Respondents getting pocket

money above Rs. 100 show maximum variation in their responses (deduced from the value of CV).

Statistically insignificant value of F-test and chi-square also witnesses that respondents of both the

cities have similar opinion irrespective of their pocket money.


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

opinion of respondents of both the cities, monthly pocket money does not have any impact on

152

opinion of respondents of both the cities. Gender has a significant influence on the opinion of

Bathinda respondents and the class has significant influence on the opinion of Ludhiana respondents.

4.3 Conclusion

Children today are playing an influential role in the household buying decisions; they are also

emerging as a big market for the marketers. While analyzing the different factors for achieving the

Ist objective it is found that although respondents of both the cities accept the role of children in

household buying decisions, respondents (both parent and children) of Ludhiana are more receptive

to the statement and majority of the respondents either agree or disagree to the statement as

compared to Bathinda city. Parent respondents in both the cities agree that although most of routine

decisions are not initiated by children because they are early adopters and hasten to take decisions,

still they agree to the consent of children while buying a household product. Parents while accepting

the increasing role of children in the household accept that children play a role of mediator if there is

any conflict while buying a household product. Child respondents agree that they influence the

purchase decisions of their parents and parents not only allow them to buy daily need products of

their choice but also appreciate the things purchased by them. Children also agree that they are not

the initiators for the buying decisions but they act as influencers in household buying decisions. It

becomes clear that role of children in household buying decisions is increasing because parents

today have more disposable income and the increase in number of women in work force also

facilitates the buying power of products in the children. The financial position of the household is

improving which in result increases the role of children in household buying decisions because

parents today do not want to say „NO‟ to their kids.

Date post:	13-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

ROLE OF CHILDREN AND GROWTH OF THE MARKET 4.1...

Documents