chapter v - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2888/17/17_chapter 5.pdf ·...

153

CHAPTER – V

MEDIA, CHILDREN AND MARKET

5.1 Introduction

Children constitute an important target market segment and merit attention from a marketing

perspective. Marketers use media influences on children to market items and influence children‟s

desires making them think that they need certain items to be popular or cool. Every year children

influence their parents‟ spending by convincing them to buy things that the media has portrayed as

“Cool”. Television has long been the predominant medium that advertisers have chosen for

marketing products to children. Marketers use television as a medium of communication since it

affords access to children at much earlier age than print media can accomplish, largely because

textual literacy does not develop until many years after children have become regular television

viewers. Children recognize name-brand products at an early age because they see them in the media

advertisements. In the light of the influence of media on children and market, the present chapter

highlights the influence of information network on children to buy the products and to help their

parents to initiate the child while making buying decisions.

The second objective of the study is to analyze the changing behaviour of household buyings

and for this purpose Factor-Combination from the scale i.e., Fa3, Fa4 and Fa6 for parent respondents

and Fb8 and Fb11 for child respondents has been taken for consideration.

Today parents rely on the information provided by their children as they feel that children are

more updated because the awareness created by media and they know more about the products

available in the market than the actual buyers. Parents today give an authority to their children to

take their own decisions as they feel that modern children are so advanced and equipped with

knowledge that sometimes a child informs the parents regarding the modified use of product if they

154

feel dissatisfied after buying it. So the analysis of these factors has shown a major change in the

household buying decisions.

5.2 Interpretation of Survey Results

5.2.1 Children Know More About the Products Available in the Market

Parent respondents of both the cities agree in majority that their children know more about

the products available in the market. Table 5.1 reflects that 66.20 percent of total respondents agree

to it. WAS of 0.59 also supports the similar conclusion.

Table 5.1

Children Know More About the Products Available in the Market:

All Parent Respondents

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

Bathinda 0.41 34.60 11

(4.40) 65

(26.00) 30

(12.00) 98

(39.20) 46

(18.40) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.76 26.33 6

(2.40) 33

(13.20) 24

(9.60) 139

(55.60) 48

(19.20) 250

(100)

Total 0.59 30.64 17

(3.40) 98

(19.60) 54

(10.80) 237

(47.40) 94

(18.80) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 19.72** (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 3.575 (df : 498)

Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

** Significant at one percent level of significance.

Among the two cities WAS 0.76 for Ludhiana respondents and 0.41 for Bathinda

respondents concluding that respondents who agree with the statement are more (74.80 percent) in

Ludhiana as compared to (57.60 percent) in Bathinda. Co-efficient of variation also shows more

consistency in the responses of Ludhiana respondents. Statistically significant value of chi-square, t-

test and co-efficient of contingency shows that respondents of two cities are highly associated with

each other.

155

Table 5.2


Age Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 35 0.20 32.81 1

(6.67) 3

(20.00) 4

(26.67) 6

(40.00) 1

(6.67) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.34 36.53 6

(6.82) 23

(26.14) 9

(10.23) 35

(39.77) 15

(17.05) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.44 33.43 3

(2.61) 31

(26.96) 15

(13.04) 44

(38.26) 22

(19.13) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.59 33.43 1

(3.12) 8

(25.00) 2

(6.25) 13

(40.62) 8

(25.00) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.76 26.33 2

(8.00) 1

(4.00) 1

(4.00) 18

(72.00) 3

(12.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 0.80 23.68 1

(1.20) 11

(13.25) 5

(6.02) 53

(63.86) 13

(15.66) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.77 26.53 2

(2.02) 13

(13.13) 13

(13.13) 49

(49.49) 22

(22.22) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.67 29.70 1

(2.33) 8

(18.60) 5

(11.63) 19

(44.19) 10

(23.26) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.55 29.58 3

(7.50) 4

(10.00) 5

(12.50) 24

(60.00) 4

(10.00) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.56 30.90 7

(4.09) 34

(19.88) 14

(8.19) 88

(51.46) 28

(16.37) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.59 30.64 5

(2.34) 44

(20.56) 28

(13.08) 93

(43.46) 44

(20.56) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.64 31.32 2

(2.67) 16

(21.33) 7

(9.33) 32

(42.67) 18

(24.00) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 8.52 (df : 12) C = 0.18; F = 0.54 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 15.72 (df : 12) C = 0.24; F = 0.14 (df : 3, 246) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 14.13 (df : 12) C = 0.17; F = 0.11 (df : 3, 496)


Age wise analysis of respondents in Table 5.2 shows Ludhiana respondents from different

age groups agree to the statement more as compared to Bathinda respondents of different age groups

as WAS for Ludhiana respondents is above 0.50 in all age categories whereas in Bathinda only

respondents of above 45 years show WAS of 0.59 where 65.62 percent respondents agree to the

statements in majority. Ludhiana respondents from the age group of 35-40 years show highest WAS

of 0.80 where 79.52 percent respondents agree to the statement. Further insignificant value of chi-

square and t-test explains that respondents of different ages have similar opinion regarding the

statement.

156

Table 5.3


Occupation Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Business 0.43 34.11 3

(3.09) 27

(27.84) 10

(10.31) 39

(40.21) 18

(18.56) 97

(100)

Service 0.40 35.00 8

(5.23)

38

(24.84)

20

(13.07)

59

(38.56)

28

(18.30)

153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.76 25.27 4

(2.65) 17

(11.26) 15

(9.93) 90

(59.60) 25

(16.56) 151

(100)

Service 0.76 27.93 2

(2.02) 16

(16.16) 9

(9.09) 49

(49.49) 23

(23.23) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.63 28.93 7

(2.82)

44

(17.74)

25

(10.08)

129

(52.02)

43

(17.34)

248

(100)

Service 0.54 32.49 10

(3.97) 54

(21.43) 29

(11.51) 108

(42.86) 51

(20.24) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 1.24 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 0.225 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.72 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.031 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 4.36 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 0.949 (df : 498)


Insignificant value of chi-square and t-test in Table 5.3 explains that respondents of two

cities of different occupations have indifferent opinion regarding the statement. Lower value of co-

efficient of contingency also supports the similar inference. WAS is higher (0.76) for Ludhiana

respondents of both the occupations, show that majority respondents of this city of different

occupations agree equally that children know more about the products available in the market than

the parents. However, WAS 0.43 for business class and 0.40 for service class of Bathinda explains

that although majority respondents of Bathinda agree to the statement but there are also about 30

percent respondents of both the occupations who disagree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation

shows that respondents who belongs to business class shows more consistency in their responses as

compare to respondents of service class.

157

Table 5.4


Gender Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Male 0.35 35.22 7

(3.65) 57

(29.69) 24

(12.50) 70

(36.46) 34

(17.71) 192

(100)

Female 0.62 32.04 4

(6.90) 8

(13.79) 6

(10.34) 28

(48.28) 12

(20.69) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.65 27.95 5

(3.07) 24

(14.72) 21

(12.88) 86

(52.76) 27

(16.56) 163

(100)

Female 0.97 22.42 1

(1.15) 9

(10.34) 3

(3.45) 53

(60.92) 21

(24.14) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.49 32.09 12

(3.38) 81

(22.82) 45

(12.68) 156

(43.94) 61

(17.18) 355

(100)

Female 0.83 26.63 5

(3.45) 17

(11.72) 9

(6.21) 81

(55.86) 33

(22.76) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 7.37 (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 1.560 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 9.33 (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 2.535* (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 15.24** (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 3.290** (df : 498)

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

*Significant at one p.c. of significance.

Gender wise analysis in Table 5.4 shows that although majority respondents in both the cities

are male but higher WAS of female respondents 0.62 in Bathinda and 0.97 in Ludhiana show that

percentage of female respondents, who agree to the statement are more in both the cities. Co-

efficient of variation also shows much variation in responses of male respondents. Chi-square test is

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

as well as Ludhiana respondents which explains that city wise only Ludhiana respondents of

different gender have different opinion regarding the statement and in Bathinda both male and

female respondents have similar opinion but when respondents of both the cities are combined male

and female respondents show significant differences in their opinion.

158

Table 5.5


Lady of Household Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents


Bathinda

Working 0.39 37.17 1

(3.57) 9

(32.14) 3

(10.71) 8

(28.57) 7

(25.00) 28

(100)

Not working 0.41 34.31 10

(4.50) 56

(25.23) 27

(12.16) 90

(40.54) 39

(17.57) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 1.03 19.85 5

(7.94) 4

(6.35) 38

(60.32) 16

(25.40) 63

(100)


(3.21) 28

(14.97) 20

(10.70) 101

(54.01) 32

(17.11) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.84 26.30 1

(1.10) 14

(15.38) 7

(7.69) 46

(50.55) 23

(25.27) 91

(100)


(3.91) 84

(20.54) 47

(11.49) 191

(46.70) 71

(17.36) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 2.21 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 0.086 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 6.74 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 2.899** (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 6.45 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 2.555* (df : 498)


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

Significant value of WAS (1.03) for Ludhiana respondents who has working lady at their

house and 0.67 for those who has non-working lady at their house explains that respondents of this

city agree to the statement in majority (Table 5.5). But in Bathinda city although WAS is positive in

both types of respondents but it has lesser value of 0.39 for respondents having working women at

their house and 0.41 for respondents having non-working women, which explains that although more

than 50 percent respondents of this city from both the categories agree to the statement but there is

some percentage of respondents 35.71 percent (working) and 29.73 percent (non-working) who also

disagree to the statement. Co-efficient of variations shows that Ludhiana respondents having

working lady at their house and Bathinda respondents having non-working lady at their house are

more consistent in their responses. Insignificant value of chi-square in both the cities shows that all

the respondents having lady of household working or not has similar opinion regarding the statement

159

but significant value of t-test for Ludhiana and total number of respondents explain that lady of

household either working or not significantly influence the perception of respondents.

Table 5.6


Number of Children Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 3.61 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 0.33 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 9.98 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 0.21 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 6.95 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 0.47 (df : 2, 497)


Table 5.6 explains that although majority respondents in both the cities have two children but

higher WAS 0.64 for Bathinda, 0.92 for Ludhiana and 0.78 for total number of respondents explain

that respondents who have only one child agree to the statement in majority. Statistically

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test demonstrates that respondents of both the cities having

different number of children have similar opinion regarding the statement and variation in their

responses are due to sample fluctuations.


Bathinda

One 0.64 32.14 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 1

(7.14) 7

(50.00) 3

(21.43) 14

(100)

Two 0.42 34.50 7

(4.79) 37

(25.34) 16

(10.96) 60

(41.10) 26

(17.81) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.37 35.01 3

(3.33) 26

(28.89) 13

(14.44) 31

(34.44) 17

(18.89) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.92 6.89 1

(7.69) 12

(92.31)

13 (100)

Two 0.74 27.54 4

(2.53) 23

(14.56) 17

(10.76) 80

(50.63) 34

(21.52) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.77 25.73 2

(2.53) 10

(12.66) 6

(7.59) 47

(59.49) 14

(17.72) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.78 23.02 1

(3.70) 2

(7.41) 2

(7.41) 19

(70.37) 3

(11.11) 27

(100)

Two 0.59 31.20 11

(3.62) 60

(19.74) 33

(10.86) 140

(46.05) 60

(19.74) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.56 30.90 5

(2.96) 36

(21.30) 19

(11.24) 78

(46.15) 31

(18.34) 169

(100)

160

Table 5.7


Income Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 8.15 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.57 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 18.40* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 3.48* (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 23.71** (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 7.03** (df : 2, 497)



Overall WAS of 0.86 shows that respondents belonging to higher income group of above Rs.

20,000 agree to the statement in majority. City wise analysis also shows the same result. Table 5.7

depicts that maximum variation is found in the responses of respondents of low income category of

up to Rs. 10,000 in both the cities. Statistical results explain significantly indifferent opinion of

Bathinda respondents of different income levels and a few variations are just because of sample

fluctuations (deduced from insignificant value of chi-square and F-test) whereas, statistical value of

chi-square, F-test and co-efficient of contingency witnesses significant association between

Ludhiana respondents and total number of respondents of different income groups.


Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.32 36.14 4

(3.74) 35

(32.71) 10

(9.35) 39

(36.45) 19

(17.76) 107

(100)

10-20 0.38 34.02 5

(5.32) 22

(23.40) 13

(13.83) 40

(42.55) 14

(14.89) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.67 31.34 2

(4.08) 8

(16.33) 7

(14.29) 19

(38.78) 13

(26.53) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.55 32.68 4

(6.06) 13

(19.70) 3

(4.55) 35

(53.03) 11

(16.67) 66

(100)

10-20 0.71 26.42 1

(1.15) 15

(17.24) 7

(8.05) 49

(56.32) 15

(17.24) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.95 20.76 1

(1.03) 5

(5.15) 14

(14.43) 55

(56.70) 22

(22.68) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.40 35.00 8

(4.62) 48

(27.75) 13

(7.51) 74

(42.77) 30

(17.34) 173

(100)

10-20 0.54 30.51 6

(3.31) 37

(20.44) 20

(11.05) 89

(49.17) 29

(16.02) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.86 24.61 3

(2.05) 13

(8.90) 21

(14.38) 74

(50.68) 35

(23.97) 146

(100)

161

Table 5.8


Education Wise Analysis of Parent Respondents

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 =12.97 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 2.27 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 20.79** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 3.78* (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 17.57* (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 6.65** (df : 2, 497)



Education wise analysis in Table 5.8 demonstrates that highly qualified respondents

(postgraduates) agree to the statement in majority in both the cities as compared to less qualified

respondents (deduced from value of WAS). However co-efficient of variation shows that matriculate

respondents have maximum variation in their responses. Statistical value of chi-square and F-test is

significant only in case of Ludhiana respondents and total number of respondents which explains

that education has significant impact on the opinion of respondents of Ludhiana. Value of co-

efficient of contingency also corresponds to significant association among the perception of

Ludhiana respondents of different educational levels.


Bathinda

Matric 0.17 36.91 2

(2.82) 28

(39.44) 7

(9.86) 24

(33.80) 10

(14.08) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.48 32.76 6

(4.84) 25

(20.16) 19

(15.32) 52

(41.94) 22

(17.74) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.58 34.36 3

(5.45) 12

(21.82) 4

(7.27) 22

(40.00) 14

(25.45) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.47 29.68 3

(5.26) 9

(15.79) 8

(14.04) 32

(56.14) 5

(8.77) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.78 27.25 1

(0.83) 22

(18.33) 8

(6.67) 60

(50.00) 29

(24.17) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.95 20.51 2

(2.74) 2

(2.74) 8

(10.96) 47

(64.38) 14

(19.18) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.30 33.94 5

(3.91) 37

(28.91) 15

(11.72) 56

(43.75) 15

(11.72) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.63 30.30 7

(2.87) 47

(19.26) 27

(11.07) 112

(45.90) 51

(20.90) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.79 27.18 5

(3.91) 14

(10.94) 12

(9.38) 69

(53.91) 28

(21.88) 128

(100)

162

Comparative Analysis of the Statement

Comparative analysis of the statement shows that gender, lady of house hold, income and

education have significant impact on the respondents of Ludhiana and on total number of

respondents whereas, age, occupation and number of children have insignificant effect on

respondents of both the cities. Hence, it can be concluded that Ludhiana being an advanced city, a

number of factors influence the opinion of respondents but Bathinda being less developed city these

factors do not change the opinion of respondents.

5.2.2 Children need not to Take Suggestions About Any Product from Their Parents

The second important factor for studying the changing behaviour of household buying is that

today‟s children are more advanced and independent that while buying any product they do not need

to take any suggestion from their parents.

Table 5.9

Children need not to Take Suggestions from Their Parents:



Bathinda 0.17 40.28 30

(12.00) 87

(34.80) 38

(15.20) 85

(34.00) 10

(4.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.06 37.58 24

(9.60) 73

(29.20) 33

(13.20) 105

(42.00) 15

(6.00) 250

(100)

Total 0.06 39.12 54

(10.80) 160

(32.00) 71

(14.20) 190

(38.00) 25

(5.00) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 5.35 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 2.183* (df : 498)

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

Table 5.9 demonstrates parent respondents responses from both the cities, which show that

Bathinda respondents disagree to the statement in majority (46.80 percent) as WAS is 0.17 and in

Ludhiana although the WAS is positive (0.06) but it also shows that 38.80 percent respondents from

this city disagree to the statement as compared to 48 percent respondents who agree with the

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

respondents. Insignificant value of chi-square and co-efficient of contingency shows that there is no

163

association between the respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana but significant value of t-test diverse

the inference and explain that respondents of both the cities are associated with each other.

Table 5.10




Bathinda

Up to 35 0.13 32.59 1

(6.67) 3

(20.00) 5

(33.33) 5

(33.33) 1

(6.67) 15

(100)

35 – 40 - 0.09 35.05 4

(4.55) 36

(40.91) 14

(15.91) 32

(36.36) 2

(2.27) 88

(100)

40 – 45 - 0.25 45.09 22

(19.13) 35

(30.43) 14

(12.17) 38

(33.04) 6

(5.22) 115

(100)

Above 45 - 0.22 38.85 3

(9.38) 13

(40.62) 5

(15.62) 10

(31.25) 1

(3.12) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.32 32.83 2

(8.00) 4

(16.00) 5

(20.00) 12

(48.00) 2

(8.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 - 0.02 37.58 8

(9.64) 26

(31.33) 12

(14.46) 34

(40.96) 3

(3.61) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.02 38.08 9

(9.09) 32

(32.32) 12

(12.12) 40

(40.40) 6

(6.06) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.14 39.17 5

(11.63) 11

(25.58) 4

(9.30) 19

(44.19) 4

(9.30) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.25 32.92 3

(7.50) 7

(17.50) 10

(25.00) 17

(42.50) 3

(7.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 - 0.06 36.39 12

(7.02) 62

(36.26) 26

(15.20) 66

(38.60) 5

(2.92) 171

(100)

40 – 45 - 0.13 42.16 31

(14.49) 67

(31.31) 26

(12.15) 78

(36.45) 12

(5.61) 214

(100)

Above 45 - 0.01 39.46 8

(10.67) 24

(32.00) 9

(12.00) 29

(38.67) 5

(6.67) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 17.95 (df : 12) C = 0.26; F = 0.71 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 6.06 (df : 12) C = 0.15; F = 0.67 (df : 3, 246) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 16.21 (df : 12) C = 0.18; F = 1.24 (df : 3, 496)


Age wise analysis of parent respondents shows that in Ludhiana respondents from all the age

categories show positive WAS except age category of 35 – 40 years, which shows negative WAS of

0.02 whereas in Bathinda respondents of all the age categories show negative WAS except the age

category of up to 35 years which shows positive WAS of 0.13. This clearly explains that although

majority respondents in both the cities disagree with the statement but Bathinda respondents are

more in number who does not agree with the statement. Co-efficient of variation also shows that in

Bathinda it is the age category of 40 – 45 years and in Ludhiana it is the age category of above 45

164

years where respondents have much variation in their responses. Statistically insignificant value of

chi-square and F-test in both the cities accepts the null hypothesis. Hence, Table 5.10 concludes that

respondents of different ages do not differ in their opinion in both the cities.

Table 5.11




Bathinda

Business - 0.12 41.32 11

(11.34) 35

(36.08) 13

(13.40) 31

(31.96) 7

(7.22) 97

(100)

Service - 0.20 39.64 19

(12.42) 52

(33.99) 25

(16.34) 54

(35.29) 3

(1.96) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.08 37.34 13

(8.61) 46

(30.46) 18

(11.92) 64

(42.38) 10

(6.62) 151

(100)

Service 0.02 38.08 11

(11.11) 27

(27.27) 15

(15.15) 41

(41.41) 5

(5.05) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.00 39.00 24

(9.68) 81

(32.66) 31

(12.50) 95

(38.31) 17

(6.85) 248

(100)

Service - 0.11 39.10 30

(11.90) 79

(31.35) 40

(15.87) 95

(37.70) 8

(3.17) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 4.76 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 0.482 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 1.33 (df : 4) C = 0.07; t = 0.397 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 5.04 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.079 (df : 498)


Respondents of different occupations also disagree with the statement in majority as the last

table data shows. Table 5.11 represents similar picture, where only 45.16 percent respondents of

business class and 40.87 percent respondents of service class agree that sometimes their children do

not take any suggestion while buying a product. 0.11 WAS from service class and 0.00 WAS from

business class show less agreement of respondents to the statement WAS is negative in almost all the

cases describes more disagreements to the statement. Statistical results explain significantly

indifferent opinion of the respondents of different occupations in both the cities and a few variations

are just because of sample fluctuations.

165

Table 5.12




Bathinda

Male - 0.17 40.99 26

(13.54) 62

(32.29) 31

(16.15) 65

(33.85) 8

(4.17) 192

(100)

Female - 0.16 38.03 4

(6.90)

25

(43.10)

7

(12.07)

20

(34.48)

2

(3.45)

58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.05 39.34 16

(9.82) 53

(32.52) 14

(8.59) 67

(41.10) 13

(7.98) 163

(100)

Female 0.07 34.53 8

(9.20) 20

(22.99) 19

(21.84) 38

(43.68) 2

(2.30) 87

(100)

Total

Male - 0.07 40.27 42

(11.83)

115

(32.39)

45

(12.68)

132

(37.18)

21

(5.92)

355

(100)

Female - 0.02 35.91 12

(8.28) 45

(31.03) 26

(17.93) 58

(40.00) 4

(2.76) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 3.69 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.102 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 12.47* (df : 4) C = 0.22; t = 0.135 (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.53 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 0.456 (df : 498)


* Significant at five percent level of significance.

Table 5.12 depicts the negative WAS of 0.17 for male and 0.16 for female respondents of

Bathinda, explain that there are more disagreements about the statement. Insignificant value of

statistical tests for Bathinda respondents also shows that both male and female respondents of this

city have similar opinion regarding the statement. Although WAS shows very low value for

Ludhiana respondents but it is positive and it explains that 49.08 percent male respondents and 45.98

percent female respondents agree with the statement. Statistically significant value of chi-square and

co-efficient of contingency shows significant association among the male and female respondents of

Ludhiana. However, coefficient of variation shows more variation in the responses of male

respondents as compare to their female counterparts in both the cities.

166

Table 5.13




Bathinda

Working - 0.43 44.75 4

(14.29) 14

(50.00) 1

(3.57) 8

(28.57) 1

(3.57) 28

(100)

Non-working - 0.14 39.51 26

(11.71) 73

(32.88) 37

(16.67) 77

(34.68) 9

(4.05) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.17 32.18 4

(6.35) 15

(23.81) 11

(17.46) 32

(50.79) 1

(1.59) 63

(100)

Non-working 0.02 39.40 20

(10.70) 58

(31.02) 22

(11.76) 73

(39.04) 14

(7.49) 187

(100)

Total

Working - 0.01 36.45 8

(8.79) 29

(31.87) 12

(13.19) 40

(43.96) 2

(2.20) 91

(100)

Non-working - 0.07 39.93 46

(11.25) 131

(32.03) 59

(14.43) 150

(36.67) 23

(5.62) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.32 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 1.277 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 7.21 (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 1.023 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 3.28 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.429 (df : 498)


When parent respondents of both the cities were analyzed according to the lady of household

either working or not Table 5.13 demonstrates that Bathinda respondents who have working ladies at

their house disagree (64.29 percent) to the statement in majority, which is signified by WAS of

0.43, respondents of Ludhiana who have working ladies at their house agree to the statement more

as WAS is 0.17. Statistically insignificant value of t-test and chi-square witnesses that respondents

from both the cities have almost similar opinion irrespective of the lady of household working or

non-working. Co-efficient of variation shows variation in the responses of Bathinda respondents to

have working ladies at their home as CV is 44.75 percent whereas in Ludhiana respondents having

working ladies at their home shows more consistency in their responses as CV is 32.18 percent. Co-

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

having lady of household working or non-working.

167

Table 5.14




Bathinda

One 0.00 43.67 2

(14.29) 4

(28.57) 2

(14.29) 4

(28.57) 2

(14.29) 14

(100)

Two - 0.21 39.78 15

(10.27) 59

(40.41) 17

(11.64) 51

(34.93) 4

(2.74) 146

(100)

Three/More -0.13 40.42 13

(14.44) 24

(26.67) 19

(21.11) 30

(33.33) 4

(4.44) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.08 43.18 3

(23.08) 1

(7.69) 2

(15.38) 6

(46.15) 1

(7.69) 13

(100)

Two 0.03 37.29 12

(7.59) 52

(32.91) 23

(14.56) 61

(38.61) 10

(6.33) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.10 38.06 9

(11.39) 20

(25.32) 8

(10.13) 38

(48.10) 4

(5.06) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.04 43.42 5

(18.52) 5

(18.52) 4

(14.81) 10

(37.04) 3

(11.11) 27

(100)

Two - 0.08 38.70 27

(8.88) 111

(36.51) 40

(13.16) 112

(36.84) 14

(4.61) 304

(100)

Three/More - 0.02 39.26 22

(13.02) 44

(26.04) 27

(15.98) 68

(40.24) 8

(4.73) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Child) Chi^2 = 11.85 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 0.27 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child) Chi^2 = 8.82 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.10 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child) Chi^2 = 11.73 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 0.23 (df : 2, 497)


Table 5.14 show that 42.86 percent respondents who have only one child in Bathinda and

53.16 percent respondents of Ludhiana who have three/more children agree to the statement in

majority. However 0.21 WAS from Bathinda and 0.03 WAS of Ludhiana respondents having two

children disagree to the statement in majority. Co-efficient of variation shows that respondents

having two children are more consistent in their responses in both the cities. Statistically

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test conclude acceptance of null hypothesis which means that

respondents of both the cities have almost analogous opinion irrespective of the number of children

they have. Co-efficient of contingency (0.21) witnesses high association among the respondents of

Bathinda having number of children one, two and three/more.

168

Table 5.15




Bathinda

Up to 10 - 0.13 41.11 14

(13.08) 34

(31.78) 17

(15.89) 36

(33.64) 6

(5.61) 107

(100)

10 – 20 - 0.26 39.78 13

(13.83) 32

(34.04) 15

(15.96) 34

(36.17)

94 (100)

Above 20 - 0.08 39.04 3

(6.12) 21

(42.86) 6

(12.24) 15

(30.61) 4

(8.16) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.08 37.99 8

(12.12) 17

(25.76) 5

(7.58) 34

(51.52) 2

(3.03) 66

(100)

10 – 20 0.02 39.40 10

(11.49) 26

(29.89) 8

(9.20) 38

(43.68) 5

(5.75) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.07 36.16 6

(6.19) 30

(30.93) 20

(20.62) 33

(34.02) 8

(8.25) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 - 0.05 40.00 22

(12.72) 51

(29.48) 22

(12.72) 70

(40.46) 8

(4.62) 173

(100)

10 – 20 - 0.12 39.93 23

(12.71) 58

(32.04) 23

(12.71) 72

(39.78) 5

(2.76) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.02 37.09 9

(6.16)

51

(34.93)

26

(17.81)

48

(32.88)

12

(8.22)

146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 10.21 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 0.47 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 13.75 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 0.05 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 13.05 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.61 (df : 2, 497)


Income wise analysis of parent respondents show that Bathinda respondents of different

income groups disagree to the statements as WAS is negative in all the cases, it is highest (-0.26) for

respondents of middle income group who disagree in majority. Although WAS is positive for

Ludhiana respondents of different income level but it is not significant which shows that although

they agree to the statement but not up to the desired extent and respondents from low income group

agree more as compared to the respondents to the other income groups as WAS is high (0.08) in this

category. Co-efficient of variation shows the consistency in the responses of respondents of higher

income group of above Rs. 20,000. Whereas insignificant value of chi-square and F-tests in Table

5.15 concludes the indifferent opinion of respondents of different income groups in both the cities.

169

Table 5.16




Bathinda

Matric 0.00 35.67 7

(9.86) 18

(25.35) 16

(22.54) 28

(39.44) 2

(2.82) 71

(100)

Graduate - 0.15 40.70 15

(12.10) 44

(35.48) 16

(12.90) 43

(34.68) 6

(4.84) 124

(100)

Post Grad. - 0.42 43.41 8

(14.55) 25

(45.45) 6

(10.91) 14

(25.45) 2

(3.64) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric - 0.11 39.10 6

(10.53) 20

(35.09) 7

(12.28) 22

(38.60) 2

(3.51) 57

(100)

Graduate - 0.03 39.60 14

(11.67) 36

(30.00) 16

(13.33) 47

(39.17) 7

(5.83) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.32 32.53 4

(5.48) 17

(23.29) 10

(13.70) 36

(49.32) 6

(8.22) 73

(100)

Total

Matric - 0.05 37.29 13

(10.16) 38

(29.69) 23

(17.97) 50

(39.06) 4

(3.12) 128

(100)

Graduate - 0.09 40.21 29

(11.89) 80

(32.79) 32

(13.11) 90

(36.89) 13

(5.33) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.00 38.67 12

(9.38)

42

(32.81)

16

(12.50)

50

(39.06)

8

(6.25)

128

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Edu.) Chi^2 = 10.11 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 2.12 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Edu.) Chi^2 = 6.02 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 2.72 (df : 2, 247) Total (Edu.) Chi^2 = 4.09 (df : 8) C = 0.09; F = 0.26 (df : 2, 497)


Education doesn‟t have any significant influence on the opinion of respondents as statistical

tests show insignificant value in Table 5.16. This table shows that matriculate respondents of

Bathinda show more consistency in their responses as co-efficient of variation is 35.67 percent. It

shows that 42.26 percent matriculate respondents having WAS of 0.00 agree to the statement in

majority whereas in Ludhiana 57.54 percent postgraduate respondents agree to the statement in

majority WAS of 0.32 also signifies the result. Co-efficient of variation also shows that they are

more consistent in their responses. Hence, it can be concluded that although education doesn‟t have

any significant influence on the opinion of respondents and matriculate respondents of Bathinda

170

agree to the statement more as compared to postgraduate respondents of Ludhiana, who agree to the

statement in majority.


Comparative analysis of the statement makes it clear that only gender has a significant

influence on the opinion of respondents of Ludhiana and all the other variables have insignificant

influence on the opinion of respondents of both the cities.

5.2.3 Parents Rely upon the Information Provided by the Children as They Feel They are

More Updated Because of Media

Media is playing an important role in providing information to the young children about the

new products, children are more updated because of media, so parents rely more on the information

provided by the children.

Table 5.17

Parents Rely upon the Information Provided by the Children:



Bathinda 0.47 27.67 9

(3.60) 35

(14.00) 59

(23.60) 124

(49.60) 23

(9.20) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.58 29.89 3

(1.20) 49

(19.60) 53

(21.20) 89

(35.60) 56

(22.40) 250

(100)

Total 0.53 28.90 12

(2.40) 84

(16.80) 112

(22.40) 213

(42.60) 79

(15.80) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 25.19** (df : 4) C = 0.22; t = 1.271 (df : 498)

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

Overall WAS 0.53 (Table 5.17) explains that majority respondents 58.40 percent agree to the

statement as compared to 19.20 percent respondents who disagree with the statement and 22.40

percent shows indifferent attitude towards the statement. While making a comparison between two

cities WAS of 0.58 from Ludhiana shows that more respondents of this city agree as compared to

171

Bathinda respondents who has WAS of 0.47. However co-efficient of variation shows that Bathinda

respondents are more consistent in their responses. Further significant value of chi-square and co-

efficient of contingency shows significant association between the respondents of the two cities.

Table 5.18




Bathinda

Up to 35 0.67 25.61 2

(13.33) 4

(26.67) 6

(40.00) 3

(20.00) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.48 27.01 4

(4.55) 9

(10.23) 23

(26.14) 45

(51.14) 7

(7.95) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.45 28.41 4

(3.48) 18

(15.65) 26

(22.61) 56

(48.70) 11

(9.57) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.41 28.15 1

(3.12) 6

(18.75) 6

(18.75) 17

(53.12) 2

(6.25) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.36 39.29 3

(12.00) 4

(16.00) 5

(20.00) 7

(28.00) 6

(24.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 0.71 27.22 13

(15.66) 19

(22.89) 30

(36.14) 21

(25.30) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0,.46 30.64 25

(25.25) 21

(21.21) 35

(35.35) 18

(18.18) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.74 27.01 7

(16.28) 8

(18.60) 17

(39.53) 11

(25.58) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.47 34.48 3

(7.50) 6

(15.00) 9

(22.50) 13

(32.50) 9

(22.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.59 27.30 4

(2.34) 22

(12.87) 42

(24.56) 75

(43.86) 28

(16.37) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.46 29.48 4

(1.87) 43

(20.09) 47

(21.96) 91

(42.52) 29

(13.55) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.60 28.06 1

(1.33) 13

(17.33) 14

(18.67) 34

(45.33) 13

(17.33) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 5.88 (df : 12) C = 0.15; F = 0.27 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 31.87** (df : 12) C = 0.34; F = 1.48 (df : 3, 246) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 11.96 (df : 12) C = 0.15; F = 0.71 (df : 3, 496)


Table 5.18 depicts that Bathinda respondents of age category of up to 35 years and Ludhiana

respondents of age category above 45 years agree to the statement in majority as WAS is higher in

these age categories. Statistical value of chi-square in case of Ludhiana explain that respondents‟

perception significantly differs with respect to age and the respondents above 45 years of age agree

172

to the statement in majority but young respondents of up to 35 years less relied on their children.

Value of co-efficient of contingency also corresponds to significant association among the

respondents of different ages in this city. In case of Bathinda, the respondents have almost similar

opinion and variations amount to sample fluctuations as value of chi-Square and F-test is

insignificant. Therefore, it can be concluded that Ludhiana respondents of different age groups rely

more on their children as compared to respondents of Bathinda.

Table 5.19




Bathinda

Business 0.36 30.95 6

(6.19) 16

(16.49) 19

(19.59) 49

(50.52) 7

(7.22) 97

(100)

Service 0.54 25.71 3

(1.96) 19

(12.42) 40

(26.14) 75

(49.02) 16

(10.46) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.53 31.16 3

(1.99) 31

(20.53) 33

(21.85) 51

(33.77) 33

(21.85) 151

(100)

Service 0.67 27.79 18

(18.18) 20

(20.20) 38

(38.38) 23

(23.23) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.46 31.21 9

(3.63) 47

(18.95) 52

(20.97) 100

(40.32) 40

(16.13) 248

(100)

Service 0.59 26.74 3

(1.19) 37

(14.68) 60

(23.81) 113

(44.84) 39

(15.48) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 5.43 (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 1.364 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 2.62 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.002 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 5.54 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.353 (df : 498)


Occupation wise analysis of parent respondents in Table 5.19 demonstrates that in both the

cities respondents from service occupation agree to the statement in majority, as 59.48 percent

Bathinda respondents and 61.61 percent Ludhiana respondents agree to the statement. WAS of 0.54

from Bathinda and 0.67 from Ludhiana also signifying the result. Co-efficient of variation shows

that respondents of business class have more variation in their responses in both the cities. Statistical

173

values of chi-square and t-test results in acceptance of null hypothesis which means that respondents

of different occupations have indifferent opinions regarding the statement.

Table 5.20




Bathinda

Male 0.47 26.80 7

(3.65) 25

(13.02) 43

(22.40) 104

(54.17) 13

(6.77) 192

(100)

Female 0.45 31.01 2

(3.45) 10

(17.24) 16

(27.59) 20

(34.48) 10

(17.24) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.49 30.09 3

(1.84) 34

(20.86) 33

(20.25) 66

(40.49) 27

(16.56) 163

(100)

Female 0.76 28.99 15

(17.24) 20

(22.99) 23

(26.44) 29

(33.33) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.48 28.45 10

(2.82) 59

(16.62) 76

(21.41) 170

(47.89) 40

(11.27) 355

(100)

Female 0.63 30.03 2

(1.38)

25

(17.24)

36

(24.83)

43

(29.66)

39

(26.90)

145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 9.87* (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 0.165 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 12.45* (df : 4) C = 0.22; t = 1.869 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 25.40** (df : 4) C = 0.22; t = 1.456 (df : 498)



Females are more close to their children so they rely more on the information provided by

them. Table 5.20 reflects that although both male and female respondents agree to the statement in

majority but in Ludhiana WAS of 0.76 for female respondents show that 59.77 percent female agree

to the statement whereas in Bathinda both male and female respondents almost equally agree to the

statement as WAS is 0.47 for male and 0.45 for female respondents. Statistically significant value of

chi-square in both the cities conclude that gender has a significant influence on the opinion of

respondents in both the cities which is also supported by high value of co-efficient of contingency.

However, co-efficient of variation shows that female respondents of Bathinda and male respondents

of Ludhiana are more consistent in their responses.

174

Table 5.21




Bathinda

Working 0.29 32.22 9

(32.14) 6

(21.43) 9

(32.14) 4

(14.29) 28

(100)


(4.05) 26

(11.71) 53

(23.87) 115

(51.80) 19

(8.56) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.71 27.22 10

(15.87) 14

(22.22) 23

(36.51) 16

(25.40) 63

(100)


(1.60) 39

(20.86) 39

(20.86) 66

(35.29) 40

(21.39) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.58 29.33 19

(20.88) 20

(21.98) 32

(35.16) 20

(21.98) 91

(100)


(2.93) 65

(15.89) 92

(22.49) 181

(44.25) 59

(14.43) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 11.44* (df : 4) C = 0.21; t = 0.973 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 2.01 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 1.156 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 7.91 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.570 (df : 498)


Table 5.21 represents the clear picture where 60.36 percent Bathinda respondents having

non-working lady at their house agree to the statement in majority, which is signified by WAS of

0.49. But in Ludhiana 61.91 percent respondents who have working lady at their house agree to the

statement signified by high value of WAS i.e. 0.71. Co-efficient of variation also shows that

Bathinda respondents having non-working lady at their household and Ludhiana respondents having

working lady at their house are more consistent in their responses. Statistical value of chi-square is

significant only in case of Bathinda respondents which means that lady of household working or not

has significant influence on the opinion of the respondents and 0.21 value of co-efficient of

contingency also represents high level of association among the respondents of this city. However,

insignificant value of chi-square and t-test for Ludhiana respondents explain that lady of household

does not have any significant impact on the opinion of respondents of this city.

175

Table 5.22




Bathinda

One 0.14 31.53 1

(7.14) 3

(21.43) 3

(21.43) 7

(50.00)

14 (100)

Two 0.51 27.35 6

(4.11) 17

(11.64) 34

(23.29) 75

(51.37) 14

(9.59) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.46 27.75 2

(2.22) 15

(16.67) 22

(24.44) 42

(46.67) 9

(10.00) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.38 27.22 3

(23.08) 3

(23.08) 6

(46.15) 1

(7.69) 13

(100)

Two 0.54 29.94 35

(22.15) 36

(22.78) 53

(33.54) 34

(21.52) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.70 30.27 3

(3.80) 11

(13.92) 14

(17.72) 30

(37.97) 21

(26.58) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.26 29.75 1

(3.70) 6

(22.22) 6

(22.22) 13

(48.15) 1

(3.70) 27

(100)

Two 0.53 28.61 6

(1.97) 52

(17.11) 70

(23.03) 128

(42.11) 48

(15.79) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.57 29.13 5

(2.96)

26

(15.38)

36

(21.30)

72

(42.60)

30

(17.75)

169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 4.34 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 0.92 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 11.70 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 0.76 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 4.60 (df : 8) C = 0.10; F = 1.06 (df : 2, 497)


Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in Table 5.22 concludes that number

of children of respondent does not change their opinion regarding the statement. However majority

of respondents from Bathinda who have two children agree to the statement in majority (deduced

from value of WAS i.e. 0.51) and in Ludhiana respondents having three/more children agree to the

statement (deduced from value of WAS i.e. 0.70). However, co-efficient of variation shows that

Bathinda respondents having number of children two and Ludhiana respondents having only one

child shows more consistency in their responses. Co-efficient of contingency (0.21) shows a good

deal of association among the respondents of Ludhiana.

176

Table 5.23




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.38 29.59 7

(6.54) 13

(12.15) 26

(24.30) 54

(50.47) 7

(6.54) 107

(100)

10-20 0.66 22.40 10

(10.64) 23

(24.47) 50

(53.19) 11

(11.70) 94

(100)

Above 20 0.29 32.52 2

(4.08) 12

(24.49) 10

(20.41) 20

(40.82) 5

(10.20) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.80 28.95 1

(1.52) 11

(16.67) 9

(13.64) 24

(36.36) 21

(31.82) 66

(100)

10-20 0.53 29.18 18

(20.69) 22

(25.29) 30

(34.48) 17

(19.54) 87

(100)

Above 20 0.48 31.03 2

(2.06) 20

(20.62) 22

(22.68) 35

(36.08) 18

(18.56) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.54 29.94 8

(4.62) 24

(13.87) 35

(20.23) 78

(45.09) 28

(16.18) 173

(100)

10-20 0.60 25.83 28

(15.47) 45

(24.86) 80

(44.20) 28

(15.47) 181

(100)

Above 20 0.42 31.58 4

(2.74)

32

(21.92)

32

(21.92)

55

(37.67)

23

(15.75)

146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 13.66 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 3.19* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 8.28 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.91 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 13.42 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 1.27 (df : 2, 497)



Majority of the Bathinda respondents (64.89 percent) from the middle income group agree to

the statement, which is also signified by 0.66 value of WAS (Table 5.23). Ludhiana respondents

show higher WAS of 0.80 from the respondents of low income category where 68.18 percent

respondents agree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation also shows that respondents of low

income group in Ludhiana and middle income group in Bathinda are more consistent in their

responses. Statistical value of chi-square is insignificant in both the cities but significant value of F-

test and co-efficient of contingency for Bathinda respondents show that income has significant

influence on the opinion of respondents of this city.

177

Table 5.24




Bathinda

Matric 0.49 28.94 3

(4.23) 9

(12.68) 18

(25.35) 32

(45.07) 9

(12.68) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.49 26.65 4

(3.23) 16

(12.90) 29

(23.39) 65

(52.42) 10

(8.06) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.38 28.99 2

(3.64) 10

(18.18) 12

(21.82) 27

(49.09) 4

(7.27) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.70 29.19 11

(19.30) 11

(19.30) 19

(33.33) 16

(28.07) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.52 30.97 1

(0.83) 27

(22.50) 27

(22.50) 39

(32.50) 26

(21.67) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.60 28.89 2

(2.74) 11

(15.07) 15

(20.55) 31

(42.47) 14

(19.18) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.59 28.97 3

(2.34) 20

(15.62) 29

(22.66) 51

(39.84) 25

(19.53) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.50 28.86 5

(2.05) 43

(17.62) 56

(22.95) 104

(42.62) 36

(14.75) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.51 29.06 4

(3.12)

21

(16.41)

27

(21.09)

58

(45.31)

18

(14.06)

128

(100)



Education does not have any impact on the opinion of respondents of both the cities as

statistical value of chi-square and F-test is insignificant. Table 5.24 concludes that 57.75 percent

matriculate respondents of Bathinda and 61.20 percent of Ludhiana agree to the statement in

majority (deduced from higher value of WAS), because of their lesser education they rely more on

children because they feel that they are more updated because of media.


Comparative analysis of the statement for various factors analyzed reflects that occupation,

number of children and education of respondents does not change the perception of respondents but

178

age and gender has significant influence on the opinion of Ludhiana respondents whereas gender,

lady of household and income has a significant influence on the opinion of Bathinda respondents.

5.2.4 Child Informs the Modified Use of Products to his Parents

Sometimes when parents buy a new product like mobile and they do not know its functions

and uses, children inform them regarding its modified use and parents feel satisfied.

Table 5.25

Child Informs the Modified Use of Products to his Parents:

All Child Respondents


Bathinda 0.62 22.93 4

(1.60) 26

(10.40) 50

(20.00) 151

(60.40) 19

(7.60) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.86 17.62 15

(6.00) 34

(13.60) 173

(69.20) 28

(11.20) 250

(100)

Total 0.74 20.59 4

(0.80) 41

(8.20) 84

(16.80) 324

(64.80) 47

(9.40) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 13.22* (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 3.466** (df : 498)

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

When children were asked to express their opinion on this statement WAS above 0.50 in both

the cities explain that majority child respondents agree that they inform their parents about the

modified use of products (Table 5.25). 0.62 WAS for Bathinda and 0.86 for Ludhiana respondents

explain that 68 percent respondents of Bathinda and 80.40 percent Ludhiana agree to the statement.

Surprisingly no respondent from Ludhiana strongly disagree to the statement whereas only 1.60

percent respondents of Bathinda strongly disagree with the statement. Co-efficient of variation

shows that Ludhiana respondents are more consistent in their responses. Further significant value of

chi-square, t-test and co-efficient of contingency explain the significant association between the

respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana.

179

Table 5.26


Gender Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Male 0.53 24.93 4

(2.65) 18

(11.92) 33

(21.85) 86

(56.95) 10

(6.62) 151

(100)

Female 0.76 19.41 8

(8.08)

17

(17.17)

65

(65.66)

9

(9.09)

99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.88 18.81 9

(7.69) 12

(10.26) 80

(68.38) 16

(13.68) 117

(100)

Female 0.83 16.71 6

(4.51) 22

(16.54) 93

(69.92) 12

(9.02) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.68 22.83 4

(1.49)

27

(10.07)

45

(16.79)

166

(61.94)

26

(9.70)

268

(100)

Female 0.80 17.89 14

(6.03) 39

(16.81) 158

(68.10) 21

(9.05) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.35 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 2.225* (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.08 (df : 3) C = 0.13; t = 0.524 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 6.72 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.752 (df : 498)



Gender wise analysis of child respondents in Table 5.26 demonstrates that although both

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

0.50 in all the cases but 0.76 WAS of female respondents of Bathinda shows that female respondents

of this city agree in majority and shows more consistency in their responses (deduced from value of

CV), whereas in Ludhiana although both male and female are agreed in majority but WAS 0.88 of

male respondents shows more agreement. But they also show more variation in their responses as

compared to female respondents. Insignificant value of chi-square in both the cities explain

indifferent opinion of male and female respondents but significant value of t-test for Bathinda shows

that gender has a significant impact on the opinion of Bathinda respondents.

180

Table 5.27


Age Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 10 0.72 21.51 1

(2.00) 3

(6.00) 10

(20.00) 31

(62.00) 5

(10.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.59 25.63 2

(1.98)

14

(13.86)

18

(17.82)

56

(55.45)

11

(10.89)

101

(100)

Above 13 0.60 20.56 1

(1.01) 9

(9.09) 22

(22.22) 64

(64.65) 3

(3.03) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 1.02 14.43 2

(3.92) 2

(3.92) 40

(78.43) 7

(13.73) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.81 19.69 6

(5.88)

22

(21.57)

59

(57.84)

15

(14.71)

102

(100)

Above 13 0.81 17.06 7

(7.22) 10

(10.31) 74

(76.29) 6

(6.19) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.87 18.35 1

(0.99) 5

(4.95) 12

(11.88) 71

(70.30) 12

(11.88) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.70 22.97 2

(0.99)

20

(9.85)

40

(19.70)

115

(56.65)

26

(12.81)

203

(100)

Above 13 0.70 18.92 1

(0.51) 16

(8.16) 32

(16.33) 138

(70.41) 9

(4.59) 196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 8.36 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.45 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 16.48* (df : 8) C = 0.25; F = 1.84 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 16.31* (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.90 (df : 2, 497)


Significant value of WAS in Table 5.27 for respondents of all age categories show that

majority respondents agree with the statement but higher value of WAS 0.72 for Bathinda and 1.02

for Ludhiana respondents from the respondents of up to 10 years signify the result more. Statistical

value of chi-square is significant only in case of Ludhiana and total number of respondents which

explain that respondents of different age have different opinions regarding the statement only in

Ludhiana or when they are combined with Bathinda. However, co-efficient of variation shows that

respondents of both the cities from the age group of 10 – 13 years shows more variation in their

181

responses. Value of co-efficient of contingency for Ludhiana i.e., 0.25 also supports the significant

association between the respondent of different age groups in Ludhiana.

Table 5.28


Class Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.79 17.68 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 10

(71.43) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.60 24.72 3

(2.08)

17

(11.81)

28

(19.44)

82

(56.94)

14

(9.72)

144

(100)

Above 8th 0.62 20.72 1

(1.09) 8

(8.70) 20

(21.74) 59

(64.13) 4

(4.35) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.97 15.33 2

(5.00) 2

(5.00) 31

(77.50) 5

(12.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.84 18.75 9

(6.38)

22

(15.60)

92

(65.25)

18

(12.77)

141

(100)

Above 8th 0.81 16.80 4

(5.80) 10

(14.49) 50

(72.46) 5

(7.25) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.93 16.03 3

(5.56) 4

(7.41) 41

(75.93) 6

(11.11) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.72 22.04 3

(1.05)

26

(9.12)

50

(17.54)

174

(61.05)

32

(11.23)

285

(100)

Above 8th 0.70 19.19 1

(0.62) 12

(7.45) 30

(18.63) 109

(67.70) 9

(5.59) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 4.56 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 0.30 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 4.89 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.77 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 10.37 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 1.84 (df : 2, 497)


It is evident from Table 5.28 that child respondents studying in different classes also agree to

the statement in majority witnessed by significant value of WAS. WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases

but it is highest (0.79) for Bathinda respondents and (0.97) for Ludhiana respondents studying in

class up to 5th. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test demonstrates that

respondents‟ opinion seems to be similar in both the cities. Hence, the class of a respondent does not

have any significant impact on the opinion of respondents.

182

Table 5.29


Monthly Pocket Money Wise Analysis of Child Respondents


Bathinda

Nil 0.51 25.64 2

(2.41) 12

(14.46) 16

(19.28) 48

(57.83) 5

(6.02) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.55 24.79 1

(1.32) 11

(14.47) 15

(19.74) 43

(56.58) 6

(7.89) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.78 18.25 1

(1.10) 3

(3.30) 19

(20.88) 60

(65.93) 8

(8.79) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.80 19.47 2

(4.35) 12

(26.09) 25

(54.35) 7

(15.22) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.84 16.15 6

(6.12) 10

(10.20) 76

(77.55) 6

(6.12) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.90 18.21 7

(6.60) 12

(11.32) 72

(67.92) 15

(14.15) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.61 23.82 2

(1.55) 14

(10.85) 28

(21.71) 73

(56.59) 12

(9.30) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.71 20.49 1

(0.57) 17

(9.77) 25

(14.37) 119

(68.39) 12

(6.90) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.84 18.49 1

(0.51)

10

(5.08)

31

(15.74)

132

(67.01)

23

(11.68)

197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 8.71 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 2.74* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 13.01* (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 0.35 (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 11.88 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 3.66* (df : 2, 497)


While analyzing the statement according to the monthly pocket money of the respondents

which they are getting from their parents, Table 5.29 explains that majority respondents agree to the

statement. Statistically significant value of F-test in case of Bathinda shows that respondents‟

opinion varies with respect to monthly pocket money and significant value of chi-square in case of

Ludhiana rejects null hypothesis which means that respondents‟ perception has significant influence

of monthly pocket money and respondents‟ getting different pocket money have different opinions.

However, respondents getting pocket money above Rs. 100 more agree to the statement in both the

cities (deduced from highest value of WAS). 0.22 value of co-efficient of contingency also witnesses

huge association among respondents of Ludhiana.

183


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that class does not have any significant impact

on the opinion of respondents whereas gender and monthly pocket money has significant influence

on the opinion of Bathinda respondents and age and monthly pocket money significantly changes the

opinion of Ludhiana respondents.

5.2.5 Parents Feel that Children are the Younger Generation and More Aware to Take

Decisions

When the child respondents were asked that whether their parents feel that they are the

younger generation and more aware to take decisions it is found that children do not agree to the

statement in majority.

Table 5.30

Parents Feel that Children are More Aware to Take Decisions:



Bathinda 0.07 35.50 19

(7.60) 64

(25.60) 65

(26.00) 84

(33.60) 18

(7.20) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.25 31.69 14

(5.60) 52

(20.80) 57

(22.80) 111

(44.40) 16

(6.40) 250

(100)

Total 0.16 33.54 33

(6.60) 116

(23.20) 122

(24.40) 195

(39.00) 34

(6.80) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 6.38 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 1.899 (df : 498)


Table 5.30 shows that although WAS is positive in both the cities but it has a very lesser

value of 0.07 in Bathinda and 0.25 in Ludhiana which explain that only 40.80 percent Bathinda

respondents and 50.80 percent Ludhiana respondents agree to the statement rest either disagree or

show indifferent attitude towards the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows Bathinda

respondents has more variation in their responses. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and

t-test shows negative association between the respondents of Ludhiana and Bathinda.

184

Table 5.31




Bathinda

Male 0.11 33.76 9

(5.96) 37

(24.50) 45

(29.80) 48

(31.79) 12

(7.95) 151

(100)

Female 0.01 37.54 10

(10.10)

27

(27.27)

20

(20.20)

36

(36.36)

6

(6.06)

99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.37 29.08 4

(3.42) 22

(18.80) 27

(23.08) 55

(47.01) 9

(7.69) 117

(100)

Female 0.15 33.97 10

(7.52) 30

(22.56) 30

(22.56) 56

(42.11) 7

(5.26) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.22 31.99 13

(4.85)

59

(22.01)

72

(26.87)

103

(38.43)

21

(7.84)

268

(100)

Female 0.09 35.60 20

(8.62) 57

(24.57) 50

(21.55) 92

(39.66) 13

(5.60) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.32 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.720 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 3.21 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 1.675 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.43 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.394 (df : 498)


Gender wise analysis of the statement in Table 5.31 depicts that male respondents in both the

cities agree more to the statement. WAS of 0.37 for male respondents and 0.15 for female

respondents of Ludhiana are much higher as compared to WAS 0.11 for male and 0.01 for female

respondents of Bathinda enunciates that both male and female respondents of Ludhiana agree to the

statement more than male and female respondents of Bathinda. Although co-efficient of variation

shows that male respondents in both the cities are more consistent than their female counterparts but

male respondents of Ludhiana show more consistency in their responses as CV is 29.08 percent as

compared to 33.76 percent of male respondents of Bathinda. Statistical value of chi-square and t-test

is insignificant in both the cities which explain that both male and female respondents of Bathinda

and Ludhiana have similar opinion regarding the statement.

185

Table 5.32




Bathinda

Up to 10 0.18 34.91 3

(6.00) 13

(26.00) 11

(22.00) 18

(36.00) 5

(10.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.14 35.99 9

(8.91)

23

(22.77)

22

(21.78)

39

(38.61)

8

(7.92)

101

(100)

Above 13 - 0.05 34.58 7

(7.07) 28

(28.28) 32

(32.32) 27

(27.27) 5

(5.05) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.22 31.99 4

(7.84) 10

(19.61) 9

(17.65) 27

(52.94) 1

(1.96) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.20 34.69 7

(6.86)

24

(23.53)

23

(22.55)

38

(37.25)

10

(9.80)

102

(100)

Above 13 0.33 28.23 3

(3.09) 18

(18.56) 25

(25.77) 46

(47.42) 5

(5.15) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.20 33.44 7

(6.93) 23

(22.77) 20

(19.80) 45

(44.55) 6

(5.94) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.17 35.33 16

(7.88)

47

(23.15)

45

(22.17)

77

(37.93)

18

(8.87)

203

(100)

Above 13 0.14 31.85 10

(5.10) 46

(23.47) 57

(29.08) 73

(37.24) 10

(5.10) 196

(100)

Statistical Tests



It is evident from Table 5.32 that some of the respondents in both the cities do not agree with

the statement. WAS is positive in all the cases except respondents of Bathinda who are in age group

of above 13 years ( 0.05) who do not agree in majority. However, Ludhiana respondents of this age

group agree in majority as WAS (0.33) is the highest. Co-efficient of variation shows more variation

in the responses of respondents of 10 – 13 years in both the cities. Statistical value of chi-square and

F-test accepts the null hypothesis that respondents of different age group have similar opinions

regarding the statement in both the cities.

186

Table 5.33




Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.29 42.80 2

(14.29) 5

(35.71) 3

(21.43) 3

(21.43) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.15 35.56 12

(8.33) 33

(22.92) 33

(22.92) 54

(37.50) 12

(8.33) 144

(100)

Above 8th 0.01 33.55 5

(5.43) 26

(28.26) 29

(31.52) 27

(29.35) 5

(5.43) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.25 31.38 3

(7.50) 7

(17.50) 8

(20.00) 21

(52.50) 1

(2.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.29 32.52 8

(5.67) 30

(21.28) 28

(19.86) 63

(44.68) 12

(8.51) 141

(100)

Above 8th 0.17 30.28 3

(4.35) 15

(21.74) 21

(30.43) 27

(39.13) 3

(4.35) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.11 34.73 5

(9.26) 12

(22.22) 11

(20.37) 24

(44.44) 2

(3.70) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.22 34.16 20

(7.02) 63

(22.11) 61

(21.40) 117

(41.05) 24

(8.42) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.08 32.14 8

(4.97) 41

(25.47) 50

(31.06) 54

(33.54) 8

(4.97) 161

(100)



WAS 0.29 for Bathinda respondents who are studying in class up to 5th explain that

majority 50.00 percent respondents disagree to the statement. Although WAS is positive in all the

other cases but a very less value of WAS explains that respondents do not agree to the statement in

majority. In case of Ludhiana respondents‟ WAS also have less value but it is more as compared to

Bathinda which shows that more respondents of this city agree to the statement. Co-efficient of

variation shows more consistency in the responses of respondents studying above 8th

class (deduced

from lesser value of CV in both the cities). Statistical insignificant value of chi-square and F-test

explains that respondents in both the cities have similar opinion regarding the statement. Hence,

Table 5.33 concludes that class does not change the perception of respondents.

187

Table 5.34




Bathinda

Nil 0.18 39.72 11

(13.25) 25

(30.12) 18

(21.69) 26

(31.33) 3

(3.61) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.13 34.82 5

(6.58)

19

(25.00)

20

(26.32)

25

(32.89)

7

(9.21)

76

(100)

Above 100 0.25 30.77 3

(3.30) 20

(21.98) 27

(29.67) 33

(36.26) 8

(8.79) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.17 40.64 5

(10.87) 16

(34.78) 11

(23.91) 10

(21.74) 4

(8.70) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.34 29.64 4

(4.08)

20

(20.41)

18

(18.37)

51

(52.04)

5

(5.10)

98

(100)

Above 100 0.36 28.87 5

(4.72) 16

(15.09) 28

(26.42) 50

(47.17) 7

(6.60) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.18 40.07 16

(12.40) 41

(31.78) 29

(22.48) 36

(27.91) 7

(5.43) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.25 32.00 9

(5.17)

39

(22.41)

38

(21.84)

76

(43.68)

12

(6.90)

174

(100)

Above 100 0.31 29.91 8

(4.06) 36

(18.27) 55

(27.92) 83

(42.13) 15

(7.61) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 10.58 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 3.69* (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 17.73* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 4.93** (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 23.00** (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 9.34** (df : 2, 497)



WAS is again negative while analyzing the respondents according to monthly pocket money

which they are getting from their parents. Table 5.34 shows 0.18 WAS for Bathinda respondents

and 0.17 WAS for Ludhiana respondents who are getting no pocket money and disagree to the

statement in majority. WAS is positive in other cases. WAS 0.25 for Bathinda and 0.36 for Ludhiana

respondents getting pocket money above Rs. 100 show that respondents agree to the statement but

not in majority to the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows maximum variation in the responses

of respondents who are getting no pocket money but much variation is found in respondents of

188

Ludhiana as CV is 40.64 percent as compared to Bathinda respondents who have co-efficient of

variation 39.72 percent. Statistically significant value of F-test in both the cities rejects the null

hypothesis, which proves that respondents from two cities have different opinions with respect to

monthly pocket money. Similarly significant value of chi-square and co-efficient of contingency in

case of Ludhiana respondents show the significant association of respondents.


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that only monthly pocket money of respondents

has significant influence on the opinion of respondents in both the cities whereas gender, age and

class of respondent do not change his/her perception.

While comparing the WAS of the factor combination for this objective the various tables

reveal that WAS is significant for factors Fa3, Fa6 and Fb8 and so favour the item combination for

this objective. Although factors Fa4 and Fb11 do not show much agreements of respondents but still

Ludhiana shows positive and higher WAS for these factors as compared to Bathinda. Ludhiana also

shows much higher WAS for factors Fa3, Fa6 and Fb8 and it also shows more consistent data than

Bathinda. This makes it clear that although there is change in behaviour of household buyings in

both the cities as parents rely more on children and children are more updated because of media

effects but still Ludhiana is more advanced than Bathinda because it shows positive and significant

favour for the factor combination for this objective.

The third objective of the study is to analyze the changing pattern of market in the children‟s

segment. The factor combination from the scale i.e., Fa7, Fa8, Fa13 and Fb7, Fb9, Fb12 and Fb13 can be

taken for consideration to study this phenomenon. Although the attitude of household members is

affected by so many factors but the increasing use of television, cinema and advertisements affect

189

the decision making role of the children. Children today are more brand conscious and have more

awareness about the brands because the market for children products is rapidly growing.

5.2.6 The Increasing Use of Television, Cinema etc. Affects the Decision Making Role of the

Children

Parent respondents from both the cities agree in majority that the increasing use of television,

cinema etc. affects the decision making role of the children.

Table 5.35

Television, Cinema etc. Affects the Decision Making Role of the Children:



Bathinda 0.80 26.84 7

(2.80) 31

(12.40) 25

(10.00) 130

(52.00) 57

(22.80) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 1.04 22.52 4

(1.60) 19

(7.60) 17

(6.80) 132

(52.80) 78

(31.20) 250

(100)

Total 0.92 24.74 11

(2.20) 50

(10.00) 42

(8.40) 262

(52.40) 135

(27.00) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 8.50 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 2.875** (df : 498)


Overall WAS (0.92) signifies that majority parents agree that the increasing use of Television

and Cinema affect the decision making role of the children. WAS 0.80 in Bathinda city shows that

74.80 percent respondents agree to the statement. WAS is above 1 in case of Ludhiana explains that

84.00 percent respondents of Ludhiana agree with the statement. Further the variation in the data

items reveal that Ludhiana respondents are more consistent than Bathinda respondents as Ludhiana

have co-efficient of variation equal to 22.52 percent and Bathinda have 26.84 percent. Statistically

insignificant value of chi-square in Table 5.35 explains that respondents of two cities have similar

opinion regarding the statement, but significant value of t-test diverse the inference that respondents

of Bathinda and Ludhiana have different opinions regarding the statement.

190

Table 5.36




Bathinda

Up to 35 0.87 18.60 1

(6.67) 2

(13.33) 10

(66.67) 2

(13.33) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.80 26.32 1

(1.14) 14

(15.91) 7

(7.95) 46

(52.27) 20

(22.73) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.78 27.25 5

(4.35) 11

(9.57) 13

(11.30) 61

(53.04) 25

(21.74) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.81 29.66 1

(3.12) 5

(15.62) 3

(9.38) 13

(40.62) 10

(31.25) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 1.48 15.62 1

(4.00)

10 (40.00)

14 (56.00)

25 (100)

35 – 40 0.98 23.12 1

(1.20) 7

(8.43) 9

(10.84) 42

(50.60) 24

(28.92) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.98 23.87 3

(3.03) 8

(8.08) 4

(4.04) 57

(57.58) 27

(27.27) 99

(100)

Above 45 1.07 20.15 3

(6.98) 4

(9.30) 23

(53.49) 13

(30.23) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 1.25 18.12 2

(5.00) 2

(5.00) 20

(50.00) 16

(40.00) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.88 25.00 2

(1.17) 21

(12.28) 16

(9.36) 88

(51.46) 44

(25.73) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.87 25.84 8

(3.74) 19

(8.88) 17

(7.94) 118

(55.14) 52

(24.30) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.96 24.49 1

(1.33) 8

(10.67) 7

(9.33) 36

(48.00) 23

(30.67) 75

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 8.40 (df : 12) C = 0.18; F = 0.03 (df : 3, 246) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 15.04 (df : 12) C = 0.24; F = 2.27 (df : 3, 246)

Total (Age) Chi^2 = 11.54 (df : 12) C = 0.15; F = 1.83 (df : 3, 496)


Table 5.36 depicts the age wise analysis of parent respondents. Significant value of WAS

again shows that respondents of different age groups agree to the statement in majority but young

respondents who are in the age group of up to 35 years agree more to the statement in both the cities

(deduced from value of WAS i.e., 0.87 for Bathinda and 1.48 for Ludhiana). Co-efficient of

variation also shows more consistency in responses of respondents of this age group but statistically

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test accept the null hypothesis that age does not have a

significant influence on the opinion of respondents of two cities.

191

Table 5.37




Bathinda

Business 0.68 27.99 3

(3.09) 14

(14.43) 12

(12.37) 50

(51.55) 18

(18.56) 97

(100)

Service 0.87 25.84 4

(2.61) 17

(11.11) 13

(8.50) 80

(52.29) 39

(25.49) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.99 23.81 2

(1.32) 15

(9.93) 12

(7.95) 76

(50.33) 46

(30.46) 151

(100)

Service 1.13 20.34 2

(2.02) 4

(4.04) 5

(5.05) 56

(56.57) 32

(32.32) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.87 25.58 5

(2.02) 29

(11.69) 24

(9.68) 126

(50.81) 64

(25.81) 248

(100)

Service 0.97 23.93 6

(2.38) 21

(8.33) 18

(7.14) 136

(53.97) 71

(28.17) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 2.73 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 1.427 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 4.16 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 1.266 (df : 248)

Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 2.94 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 1.212 (df : 498)


Occupation wise analysis of parent respondents in Table 5.37 clearly shows that respondents

from service class agree to the statement in majority as WAS is 0.87 for Bathinda and 1.13 for

Ludhiana as compared to 0.68 and 0.99 for business class respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana. In

both the cities more than 75 percent respondents of service class agree to the statement. Service class

respondents also show more consistency in their responses (deduced from value of co-efficient of

variation). Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and t-test explains that respondents of

different occupations have similar opinion regarding the statement in both the cities. Hence, it can be

concluded that occupation does not change the respondents‟ perception in both the cities. Whereas

co-efficient of contingency (0.13) shows good deal of association among the respondents of different

occupations in Ludhiana.

192

Table 5.38




Bathinda

Male 0.78 26.98 6

(3.120 23

(11.98) 21

(10.94) 100

(52.08) 42

(21.88) 192

(100)

Female 0.86 26.17 1

(1.72) 8

(13.79) 4

(6.90) 30

(51.72) 15

(25.86) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.95 23.54 3

(1.84) 15

(9.20) 12

(7.36) 90

(55.21) 43

(26.38) 163

(100)

Female 1.22 19.91 1

(1.15) 4

(4.60) 5

(5.75) 42

(48.28) 35

(40.23) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.86 25.39 9

(2.54) 38

(10.70) 33

(9.30) 190

(53.52) 85

(23.94) 355

(100)

Female 1.08 22.79 2

(1.38) 12

(8.28) 9

(6.21) 72

(49.66) 50

(34.48) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.47 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.568 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.97 (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 2.313* (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 6.93 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 2.363* (df : 498)


Female respondents in the gender analysis of parent respondents agreed more to the

statement as compared to male respondents as shown in Table 5.38 which further explains that 77.58

percent and 88.51 percent. Female respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana agreed to the statement

respectively. Although WAS is significant in case of both male and female respondents, but

insignificant value of chi-square accepts the null hypothesis and hence monitors independent opinion

of the male and female respondents in both the cities but significant value of t-test for Ludhiana

respondents and total number of respondents specify that both male and female respondents‟

perception significantly differs only in Ludhiana or when they are combined with Bathinda but

gender has no significant influence on the opinion of the respondents of Bathinda. However, co-

efficient of contingency (0.15) witnesses that Ludhiana respondents of different genders have good

deal of association.

193

Table 5.39




Bathinda

Working 0.96 24.75 4

(14.29) 2

(7.14) 13

(46.43) 9

(32.14) 28

(100)


(3.15) 27

(12.16) 23

(10.36) 117

(52.70) 48

(21.62) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 1.22 18.25 1

(1.59) 1

(1.59) 4

(6.35) 34

(53.97) 23

(36.51) 63

(100)


(1.60) 18

(9.63) 13

(6.95) 98

(52.41) 55

(29.41) 187

(100)

Total

Working 1.14 20.53 1

(1.10) 5

(5.49) 6

(6.59) 47

(51.65) 32

(35.16) 91

(100)


(2.44) 45

(11.00) 36

(8.80) 215

(52.57) 103

(25.18) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 2.63 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 0.959 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.81 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 2.009* (df : 248)

Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 6.06 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 2.688** (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.


It is evident from Table 5.39 that respondents who have working ladies at their house agree

to the statement in majority as 78.57 percent from Bathinda and 90.48 percent from Ludhiana agree

to it. Higher value of WAS also signifies the conclusion. Although co-efficient of variation shows

more consistency in responses of respondents who have working ladies at their house but Ludhiana

respondents are more consistent than Bathinda as value of CV is 18.25 percent in Ludhiana as

compared to 24.75 percent in Bathinda. Statistically significant value of t-test in Ludhiana and total

number of respondents shows that lady of household whether working or not have significant

influence on the opinion of respondents of this city or when they are combined with Bathinda but

insignificant value of chi-square in both the cities show that lady of household has a negative

association with respondents‟ perception in both the cities.

194

Table 5.40




Bathinda

One 0.64 26.65 3

(21.43) 1

(7.14) 8

(57.14) 2

(14.29) 14

(100)

Two 0.82 26.70 3

(2.05)

21

(14.38)

11

(7.53)

76

(52.05)

35

(23.97)

146

(100)

Three/More 0.79 26.91 4

(4.44) 7

(7.78) 13

(14.44) 46

(51.11) 20

(22.22) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.92 18.62 1

(7.69) 1

(7.69) 9

(69.23) 2

(15.38) 13

(100)

Two 0.96 23.23 3

(1.90)

14

(8.86)

10

(6.33)

90

(56.96)

41

(25.95)

158

(100)

Three/More 1.23 21.04 1

(1.27) 4

(5.06) 6

(7.59) 33

(41.77) 35

(44.30) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.78 23.02 4

(14.81) 2

(7.41) 17

(62.96) 4

(14.81) 27

(100)

Two 0.89 24.94 6

(1.97)

35

(11.51)

21

(6.91)

166

(54.61)

76

(25.00)

304

(100)

Three/More 0.99 24.56 5

(2.96) 11

(6.51) 19

(11.24) 79

(46.75) 55

(32.54) 169

(100)




Number of children of a respondent is another important factor that influences respondent‟s

opinion to a great extent. Table 5.40 demonstrates that majority respondents 76.02 percent in

Bathinda who have two children and 86.07 percent Ludhiana respondents who have three/more

children agree to the statement. 0.82 WAS for Bathinda respondents and 0.96 WAS for Ludhiana

respondents signify it. Although, WAS is significant in all the cases but still the respondents‟

perception seems to be similar in both the cities as F-test and chi-square shows insignificant values.

However, co-efficient of contingency (0.21) witnesses high association among the respondents of

Ludhiana.

195

Table 5.41




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.73 28.42 4

(3.74) 15

(14.02) 10

(9.35) 55

(51.40) 23

(21.50) 107

(100)

10-20 0.82 25.92 2

(2.13)

11

(11.70)

11

(11.70)

48

(51.06)

22

(23.40)

94

(100)

Above 20 0.90 24.36 1

(2.04) 5

(10.20) 4

(8.16) 27

(55.10) 12

(24.49) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 1.18 22.49 1

(1.52) 5

(7.58) 3

(4.55) 29

(43.94) 28

(42.42) 66

(100)

10-20 1.08 21.08 7

(8.05)

8

(9.20)

43

(49.43)

29

(33.33)

87

(100)

Above 20 0.92 23.47 3

(3.09) 7

(7.22) 6

(6.19) 60

(61.86) 21

(21.65) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.90 26.67 5

(2.89) 20

(11.56) 13

(7.51) 84

(48.55) 51

(29.48) 173

(100)

10-20 0.94 23.86 2

(1.10)

18

(9.94)

19

(10.50)

91

(50.28)

51

(28.18)

181

(100)

Above 20 0.91 23.79 4

(2.74) 12

(8.22) 10

(6.85) 87

(59.59) 33

(22.60) 146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 1.80 (df : 8) C = 0.08; F = 0.50 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 12.37 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 1.77 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 7.58 (df : 8) C = 0.12; F = 0.09 (df : 2, 497)


Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in Table 5.41 divulges that income

does not have any significant influence on the perception of respondents but 0.90 WAS from

Bathinda respondents who have monthly family income above Rs. 20,000 and 1.18 WAS of

Ludhiana respondents who have monthly family income up to Rs. 10,000 agree to the statement in

majority. Co-efficient of variation shows that in Bathinda respondents from low income category

and in Ludhiana respondents from higher income group have more variation in their responses as

value of CV is 28.42 percent for Bathinda respondents of low income group and 23.47 percent for

196

Ludhiana respondents of high income group. Co-efficient of contingency (0.22) shows significant

association among the respondents of Ludhiana of different income groups.

Table 5.42




Bathinda

Matric 0.72 26.08 2

(2.82) 7

(9.86) 13

(18.31) 36

(50.70) 13

(18.31) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.81 27.30 4

(3.23) 17

(13.71) 7

(5.65) 67

(54.03) 29

(23.39) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.87 26.10 1

(1.82) 7

(12.73) 5

(9.09) 27

(49.09) 15

(27.27) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 1.16 19.95 4

(7.02) 4

(7.02) 28

(49.12) 21

(36.84) 57

(100)

Graduate 1.02 22.58 1

(0.83) 11

(9.17) 9

(7.50) 62

(51.67) 37

(30.83) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.99 24.06 3

(4.11)

4

(5.48)

4

(5.48)

42

(57.53)

20

(27.40)

73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.91 24.04 2

(1.56) 11

(8.59) 17

(13.28) 64

(50.00) 34

(26.56) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.91 25.32 5

(2.05) 28

(11.48) 16

(6.56) 129

(52.87) 66

(27.05) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.94 24.87 4

(3.12)

11

(8.59)

9

(7.03)

69

(53.91)

35

(27.34)

128

(100)



Table 5.42 portrays the percentage distribution of the respondents by their educational level

and it is found that postgraduate respondents of Bathinda (WAS 0.87) and matriculate respondents

of Ludhiana (WAS 1.16) agree to the statement in majority as 76.36 percent Bathinda respondents

and 85.96 percent Ludhiana respondents are agreed. Matriculate respondents in both the cities are

more consistent in their responses as value of C.V. is 26.08 percent for Bathinda and 19.95 percent

for Ludhiana respondents. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test accept the null

hypothesis that education does not have any impact on the opinion of respondents.

197


Comparative analysis of the statement divulges that only gender and lady of household has

significant influence on the perception of Ludhiana respondents, whereas all the other variables have

insignificant impact on the respondents of both Bathinda and Ludhiana.

5.2.7 The Advertisements have More Impact on the Minds of Children

Advertisements play an influential role in customers‟ choice of goods or services and

especially on children as they offer them new products. So they have more impact on the minds of

the children.

Table 5.43

Advertisements have More Impact on the Minds of Children:



Bathinda 0.80 25.79 6

(2.40) 30

(12.00) 23

(9.20) 140

(56.00) 51

(20.40) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 1.10 19.76 1

(0.40) 16

(6.40) 16

(6.40) 140

(56.00) 77

(30.80) 250

(100)

Total 0.95 23.04 7

(1.40) 46

(9.20) 39

(7.80) 280

(56.00) 128

(25.60) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 14.37** (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 3.794** (df : 498)


When parent respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana were asked to express their opinions on

the statement, it is found that 76.40 percent respondents of Bathinda and 86.80 percent respondents

of Ludhiana agree to the statement and only 14.40 percent respondents from Bathinda and 6.80

percent from Ludhiana disagree to the statement (Table 5.43). WAS of 0.80 for Bathinda and 1.10

for Ludhiana respondents signify the results. Although respondents agree in majority in both the

cities but a number of agreed respondents are more in Ludhiana as WAS is much higher than

Bathinda, respondents of this city also show more consistency in their responses as CV has 19.76

198

percent variation as compared to Bathinda respondents who have 25.79 percent variations in their

responses. Further significant value of chi-square, t-test and co-efficient of contingency show

significant association among the respondents of the two cities.

Table 5.44




Bathinda

Up to 35 1.27 15.93 2

(13.33) 7

(46.67) 6

(40.00) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.81 25.20 3

(3.41)

9

(10.23)

6

(6.82)

54

(61.36)

16

(18.18)

88

(100)

40 – 45 0.72 26.34 2

(1.74) 17

(14.78) 13

(11.30) 62

(53.91) 21

(18.26) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.84 26.82 1

(3.12) 4

(12.50) 2

(6.25) 17

(53.12) 8

(25.00) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 1.16 21.15 2

(8.00)

2

(8.00)

11

(44.00)

10

(40.00)

25

(100)

35 – 40 1.13 20.10 1

(1.20) 5

(6.02) 3

(3.61) 47

(56.63) 27

(32.53) 83

(100)

40 – 45 1.04 18.81 6

(6.06) 9

(9.09) 59

(59.60) 25

(25.25) 99

(100)

Above 45 1.16 19.23 3

(6.98)

2

(4.65)

23

(53.49)

15

(34.88)

43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 1.20 19.29 2

(5.00) 4

(10.00) 18

(45.00) 16

(40.00) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.96 23.23 4

(2.34) 14

(8.19) 9

(5.26) 101

(59.06) 43

(25.15) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.87 23.26 2

(0.93) 23

(10.75) 22

(10.28) 121

(56.54) 46

(21.50) 214

(100)

Above 45 1.03 22.83 1

(1.33) 7

(9.33) 4

(5.33) 40

(53.33) 23

(30.67) 75

(100)



It is found that respondents of all age groups agree to the statement but WAS is the highest in

the Ist age category of up to 35 years, which shows that respondents of this age group agree to it in

majority. In Ludhiana old age parents of above 45 years also show the significant WAS. Co-efficient

199

of variation shows that Bathinda respondents from the age category of above 45 years and Ludhiana

respondents from the age category of up to 35 years have more variation in their responses as CV is

high in these cases. Table 5.44 concludes that in case of age, respondents have almost analogous

opinion as values of chi-square and F-test are insignificant and variations are due to sample

fluctuations.

Table 5.45




Bathinda

Business 0.56 29.49 3

(3.09) 19

(19.59) 9

(9.28) 53

(54.64) 13

(13.40) 97

(100)

Service 0.95 22.78 3

(1.96) 11

(7.19) 14

(9.15) 87

(56.86) 38

(24.84) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 1.13 17.92 9

(5.96) 6

(3.97) 93

(61.59) 43

(28.48) 151

(100)

Service 1.07 22.11 1

(1.01) 7

(7.07) 10

(10.10) 47

(47.47) 34

(34.34) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.90 23.59 3

(1.21) 28

(11.29) 15

(6.05) 146

(58.87) 56

(22.58) 248

(100)

Service 1.00 22.50 4

(1.59) 18

(7.14) 24

(9.52) 134

(53.17) 72

(28.57) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 11.78* (df : 4) C = 0.21; t = 3.095** (df : 248) Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 7.94 (df : 4) C = 0.18; t = 0.507 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 6.88 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.192 (df : 498)



Table 5.45 manifests that 81.70 percent Bathinda respondents from service class and 90.07

percent Ludhiana respondents from business class agreed to the statement in majority. Significant

value of WAS in all the cases witnesses that respondents from different occupations agree to the

statement in majority. However, co-efficient of variation shows that Bathinda respondents from

business class and Ludhiana respondents from service class has more variation in their responses as

200

value of CV is higher. Statistical results clarify that Bathinda respondents from different occupations

have different opinions regarding the statement where service class from Bathinda with WAS of

0.95 and business class from Ludhiana with WAS of 1.13 gain more importance, but Ludhiana

respondents from different occupations have similar opinion regarding the statement and a few

variations amount to sample fluctuations, as chi-square test and t-test shows insignificant values.

Table 5.46




Bathinda

Male 0.76 26.33 4

(2.08) 26

(13.54) 20

(10.42) 104

(54.17) 38

(19.79) 192

(100)

Female 0.93 23.66 2

(3.45) 4

(6.90) 3

(5.17) 36

(62.07) 13

(22.41) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 1.06 19.46 1

(0.61)

10

(6.13)

11

(6.75)

98

(60.12)

43

(26.38)

163

(100)

Female 1.20 19.76 6

(6.90) 5

(5.75) 42

(48.28) 34

(39.08) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.90 23.33 5

(1.41) 36

(10.14) 31

(8.73) 202

(56.90) 81

(22.82) 355

(100)

Female 1.09 21.52 2

(1.38)

10

(6.90)

8

(5.52)

78

(53.79)

47

(32.41)

145

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 3.96 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 1.211 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 5.07 (df : 4) C = 0.14; t = 1.294 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 6.42 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 2.213* (df : 498)



Gender wise analysis of the statement in Table 5.46 shows the same results as shown by

previous Tables. Both the male and female respondents agree to the statement in majority but higher

WAS of female respondents 0.93 from Bathinda and 1.20 from Ludhiana shows that female

respondents agree more than their male counterparts. Whereas co-efficient of variation shows that

male respondents of Bathinda and female respondents of Ludhiana show more variation in their

responses. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and t-test shows that gender of a respondent

201

does not have any significant influence on the respondents‟ perception but significant value of t-test

for total respondents explains that male and female respondents have different opinions regarding

the statement only when they are combined.

Table 5.47




Bathinda

Working 1.11 17.52 2

(7.14)

19 (67.86)

7 (25.00)

28 (100)


(2.70) 28

(12.61) 23

(10.36) 121

(54.50) 44

(19.82) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 1.29 16.32 2

(3.17) 3

(4.76) 33

(52.38) 25

(39.68) 63

(100)


(0.53) 14

(7.49) 13

(6.95) 107

(57.22) 52

(27.81) 187

(100)

Total

Working 1.23 16.78 4

(4.40) 3

(3.30) 52

(57.14) 32

(35.16) 91

(100)


(1.71)

42

(10.27)

36

(8.80)

228

(55.75)

96

(23.47)

409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 5.40 (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 2.271* (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.41 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 2.267* (df : 248)

Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 11.24* (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 3.880** (df : 498)


Although WAS is significant in all the cases but WAS of 1.11 for Bathinda respondents and

1.29 for Ludhiana respondents who have working ladies at their houses shows that respondents

having working ladies agree to the statement in majority as 92.86 percent Bathinda respondents and

92.06 percent Ludhiana respondents agree to the statement. Respondents who have working ladies at

their houses also show more consistency in their responses as value of co-efficient of variation is

less, as compared to respondents who have non-working ladies at their household. Statistical value

of chi-square is significant only in case of total number of respondents but t-test shows the

202

significant value in all the cases. Hence, Table 5.47 concludes that lady of household either working

or not has a significant impact on respondents‟ perception in both the cities.

Table 5.48




Bathinda

One 1.07 14.50 2

(14.29) 9

(64.29) 3

(21.43) 14

(100)

Two 0.79 26.12 3

(2.05)

20

(13.70)

12

(8.22)

80

(54.79)

31

(21.23)

146

(100)

Three/More 0.77 26.26 3

(3.33) 10

(11.11) 9

(10.00) 51

(56.67) 17

(18.89) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.92 15.82 1

(7.69)

11 (84.62)

1 (7.69)

13 (100)

Two 1.13 18.64 1

(0.63)

7

(4.43)

11

(6.96)

91

(57.59)

48

(30.38)

158

(100)

Three/More 1.09 22.00 8

(10.13) 5

(6.33) 38

(48.10) 28

(35.44) 79

(100)

Total

One 1.00 15.25 1

(3.70) 2

(7.41) 20

(74.07) 4

(14.81) 27

(100)

Two 0.97 22.67 4

(1.32)

27

(8.88)

23

(7.57)

171

(56.25)

79

(25.99)

304

(100)

Three/More 0.92 24.49 3

(1.78) 18

(10.65) 14

(8.28) 89

(52.66) 45

(26.63) 169

(100)




Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test shows that number of children does

not have any significant influence on the respondent‟s opinion as shown in Table 5.48 but significant

value of WAS explains that although all the respondents agree to the statement in majority but

Bathinda respondents who have only one child and Ludhiana respondents who have two children

agree to the statement more (deduced from WAS i.e., 1.07 for Bathinda and 1.13 for Ludhiana). In

both the cities respondents who have three/more children have much variation in their responses as

203

CV is higher in this category. However, co-efficient of contingency (0.19) witnesses a good deal of

association among the respondents of Ludhiana.

Table 5.49




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.60 28.61 4

(3.74) 17

(15.89) 12

(11.21) 59

(55.14) 15

(14.02) 107

(100)

10-20 0.84 25.52 2

(2.13)

11

(11.70)

9

(9.57)

50

(53.19)

22

(23.40)

94

(100)

Above 20 1.16 16.35 2

(4.08) 2

(4.08) 31

(63.27) 14

(28.57) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 1.14 20.53 5

(7.58) 5

(7.58) 32

(48.48) 24

(36.36) 66

(100)

10-20 1.14 18.36 5

(5.75)

5

(5.75)

50

(57.47)

27

(31.03)

87

(100)

Above 20 1.05 20.25 1

(1.03) 6

(6.19) 6

(6.19) 58

(59.79) 26

(26.80) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.80 26.32 4

(2.31) 22

(12.72) 17

(9.83) 91

(52.60) 39

(22.54) 173

(100)

10-20 0.98 22.36 2

(1.10)

16

(8.84)

14

(7.73)

100

(55.25)

49

(27.07)

181

(100)

Above 20 1.09 19.07 1

(0.68) 8

(5.48) 8

(5.48) 89

(60.96) 40

(27.40) 146

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 12.56 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 5.97** (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 4.11 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 0.33 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 10.13 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 4.12* (df : 2, 497)


Income wise analysis of respondents in Table 5.49 explains that although all the respondents

of low, middle and high income groups agree to the statement in majority but WAS of 1.16 for

Bathinda respondents from the income category of above Rs. 20,000 and 1.14 WAS for Ludhiana

respondents from the low and middle income group agree to the statement more because more than

85 percent respondents from these income groups agree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation

shows the maximum variation in the responses of respondents of low income group as CV has

204

higher value than other categories. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and co-efficient of

contingency shows negative association between respondents‟ perception and monthly family

income. But significant value of F-test for Bathinda respondents and total respondents explain that

income of a respondent significantly affects his/her perception.

Table 5.50




Bathinda

Matric 0.63 25.34 1

(1.41) 11

(15.49) 9

(12.68) 42

(59.15) 8

(11.27) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.80 27.11 4

(3.23) 16

(12.90) 9

(7.26) 67

(54.03) 28

(22.58) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 1.02 21.39 1

(1.82) 3

(5.45) 5

(9.09) 31

(56.36) 15

(27.27) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 1.12 21.84 6

(10.53) 2

(3.51) 28

(49.12) 21

(36.84) 57

(100)

Graduate 1.07 18.38 7

(5.83) 9

(7.50) 72

(60.00) 32

(26.67) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 1.14 19.81 1

(1.37) 3

(4.11) 5

(6.85) 40

(54.79) 24

(32.88) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.85 24.42 1

(0.78) 17

(13.28) 11

(8.59) 70

(54.69) 29

(22.66) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.93 23.41 4

(1.64) 23

(9.43) 18

(7.38) 139

(56.97) 60

(24.59) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 1.09 20.54 2

(1.56) 6

(4.69) 10

(7.81) 71

(55.47) 39

(30.47) 128

(100)



Table 5.50 shows the significant value of WAS for all the respondents of different

educational categories but it is the highest in case of postgraduate respondents as WAS is 1.02 for

Bathinda and 1.14 for Ludhiana respondents. Although insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in

both the cities accepts the null hypothesis that education does not affect respondents‟ perception.

205


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that only lady of household (working or non-

working) has significant influence on respondents‟ perception in both the cities whereas occupation

and income significantly affect the perception of Bathinda respondents. However, all the other

factors do not have any significant influence on the perception of respondents in both the cities.

5.2.8 Direct Market for Children has Grown Over the Past Few Years

Majority of the parent respondents agreed that market for children products has grown over

the past few years. Marketers see children as a future as well as current market and hence

introducing new categories of product lines for them.

Table 5.51

Direct Market for Children has Grown:



Bathinda 0.64 25.27 9

(3.60) 23

(9.20) 46

(18.40) 144

(57.60) 28

(11.20) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.86 21.50 2

(0.80) 17

(6.80) 43

(17.20) 139

(55.60) 49

(19.60) 250

(100)

Total 0.75 23.73 11

(2.20) 40

(8.00) 89

(17.80) 283

(56.60) 77

(15.40) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 11.27* (df : 4) C = 0.15; t = 2.897** (df : 498)


Overall WAS 0.75 for total respondents 0.64 for Bathinda respondents and 0.86 for Ludhiana

respondents (Table 5.51) show that 72 percent total respondents, 68.80 percent Bathinda respondents

and 65.20 percent Ludhiana respondents agree that market for children products has grown over the

past few years. Only a few 12.80 percent Bathinda respondents and 7.60 percent Ludhiana

respondents disagree to the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows that Ludhiana respondents are

206

more consistent in their responses as CV is 21.50 percent as compared to Bathinda which is 25.27

percent. Further significant value of chi-square, t-test and co-efficient of contingency shows

significant association among the respondents of the two cities.

Table 5.52




Bathinda

Up to 35 1.00 13.00 2

(13.33) 11

(73.33) 2

(13.33) 15

(100)

35 – 40 0.53 28.33 4

(4.55) 12

(13.64) 14

(15.91) 49

(55.68) 9

(10.23) 88

(100)

40 – 45 0.60 26.39 5

(4.35) 10

(8.70) 24

(20.87) 63

(54.78) 13

(11.30) 115

(100)

Above 45 0.88 16.75 1

(3.12) 6

(18.75) 21

(65.62) 4

(12.50) 32

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 35 0.96 20.71 1

(4.00) 6

(24.00) 11

(44.00) 7

(28.00) 25

(100)

35 – 40 0.92 19.39 4

(4.82) 16

(19.28) 46

(55.42) 17

(20.48) 83

(100)

40 – 45 0.89 21.34 2

(2.02) 4

(4.04) 16

(16.16) 58

(58.59) 19

(19.19) 99

(100)

Above 45 0.65 25.75 8

(18.60) 5

(11.63) 24

(55.81) 6

(13.95) 43

(100)

Total

Up to 35 0.97 18.09 1

(2.50) 8

(20.00) 22

(55.00) 9

(22.50) 40

(100)

35 – 40 0.72 24.46 4

(2.34) 16

(9.36) 30

(17.54) 95

(55.56) 26

(15.20) 171

(100)

40 – 45 0.73 24.40 7

(3.27) 14

(6.54) 40

(18.69) 121

(56.54) 32

(14.95) 214

(100)

Above 45 0.75 22.13 9

(12.00) 11

(14.67) 45

(60.00) 10

(13.33) 75

(100)



WAS 1.00 for Bathinda respondents and 0.96 for Ludhiana respondents explains that

younger respondents who are in the age category of up to 35 years agree to the statement in majority

as 86.66 percent Bathinda respondents and 72 percent Ludhiana respondents of this age category

agree to the statement. Further insignificant value of chi-square and F-test shows that respondents of

different age groups in both the cities have similar opinion regarding the statement. So it is obvious

from Table 5.52 that age does not have any significant influence over the respondents‟ perception.

207

Table 5.53 Direct Market for Children has Grown:

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

Bathinda

Business 0.53 27.48 4

(4.12) 12

(12.37) 20

(20.62) 51

(52.58) 10

(10.31) 97

(100)

Service 0.71 23.72 5

(3.27) 11

(7.19) 26

(16.99) 93

(60.78) 18

(11.76) 153

(100)

Ludhiana

Business 0.89 19.54 1

(0.66) 6

(3.97) 29

(19.21) 88

(58.28) 27

(17.88) 151

(100)

Service 0.83 24.28 1

(1.01) 11

(11.11) 14

(14.14) 51

(51.52) 22

(22.22) 99

(100)

Total

Business 0.75 23.20 5

(2.02)

18

(7.26)

49

(19.76)

139

(56.05)

37

(14.92)

248

(100)

Service 0.75 24.27 6

(2.38) 22

(8.73) 40

(15.87) 144

(57.14) 40

(15.87) 252

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Occu.) Chi^2 = 3.08 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 1.475 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Occu.) Chi^2 = 6.53 (df : 4) C = 0.16; t = 0.527 (df : 248) Total (Occu.) Chi^2 = 1.57 (df : 4) C = 0.06; t = 0.101 (df : 498)


In occupation wise analysis of parent respondents, Table 5.53 portrays that 72.54 percent

Bathinda respondents from service class and 76.16 percent Ludhiana respondents from business

class agree to the statement in majority. 0.71 WAS from Bathinda and 0.89 WAS from Ludhiana

also signifies it. However, insignificant value of chi-square and t-test in both the cities show that

respondents from different occupations have indifferent opinions regarding the statement.

Table 5.54 Direct Market for Children has Grown:

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

Bathinda

Male 0.64 25.82 8

(4.17) 17

(8.85) 32

(16.67) 114

(59.38) 21

(10.94) 192

(100)

Female 0.62 24.59 1

(1.72) 6

(10.34) 14

(24.14) 30

(51.72) 7

(12.07) 58

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.74 22.19 2

(1.23) 14

(8.59) 29

(17.79) 97

(59.51) 21

(12.88) 163

(100)

Female 1.09 19.07 3

(3.45) 14

(16.09) 42

(48.28) 28

(32.18) 87

(100)

Total

Male 0.69 24.12 10

(2.82) 31

(8.73) 61

(17.18) 211

(59.44) 42

(11.83) 355

(100)

Female 0.90 22.05 1

(0.69) 9

(6.21) 28

(19.31) 72

(49.66) 35

(24.14) 145

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 2.70 (df : 4) C = 0.10; t = 0.148 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 15.44** (df : 4) C = 0.24; t = 3.289** (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 15.07** (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 2.527* (df : 498)


208

Table 5.54 depicts that although both male and female respondents agree to the statement as

WAS is significant in all the cases but male respondents of Bathinda and female respondents of

Ludhiana agree to the statement in majority (deduced from value of WAS i.e., 0.64 for male

respondents of Bathinda and 1.09 for female respondents of Ludhiana). Female respondents also

show more consistency in their responses as value of CV is less than male respondents in both the

cities. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and t-test for Bathinda respondents show that

both male and female respondents of Bathinda have similar opinion regarding the statement, but

significant value of chi-square and t-test for Ludhiana respondents and total number of respondents

explain that gender has a significant impact on the opinion of respondents and it is also supported by

co-efficient of contingency i.e., 0.24 for Ludhiana respondents and 0.17 for total number of

respondents.

Table 5.55




Bathinda

Working 0.64 28.57 2

(7.14) 2

(7.14) 4

(14.29) 16

(57.14) 4

(14.29) 28

(100)


(3.15) 21

(9.46) 42

(18.92) 128

(57.66) 24

(10.81) 222

(100)

Ludhiana

Working 0.92 22.45 6

(9.52) 9

(14.29) 32

(50.79) 16

(25.40) 63

(100)


(1.07) 11

(5.88) 34

(18.18) 107

(57.22) 33

(17.65) 187

(100)

Total

Working 0.84 24.48 2

(2.20) 8

(8.79) 13

(14.29) 48

(52.75) 20

(21.98) 91

(100)


(2.20) 32

(7.82) 76

(18.58) 235

(57.46) 57

(13.94) 409

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Lady) Chi^2 = 1.80 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.037 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Lady) Chi^2 = 3.80 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.602 (df : 248) Total (Lady) Chi^2 = 4.28 (df : 4) C = 0.09; t = 0.967 (df : 498)


Table 5.55 is evidence that Bathinda respondents who have working or non-working ladies at

their household agree to the statement equally as WAS is 0.64 in both types of respondents but in

209

Ludhiana respondents who have working lady at their household agree to the statement more as

WAS is 0.92 as compared to WAS of 0.84 for those who have non-working lady at their household.

Co-efficient of variation also shows that respondents who have non-working lady at their household

are more consistent in their responses. WAS is significant in all the cases but insignificant value of

chi-square and t-test explain that in case of lady of household, the respondents have similar opinion

and variations amount to sample fluctuations.

Table 5.56




Bathinda

One 0.43 34.40 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 4

(28.57) 4

(28.57) 3

(21.43) 14

(100)

Two 0.61 26.87 8

(5.48) 11

(7.53) 28

(19.18) 82

(56.16) 17

(11.64) 146

(100)

Three/More 0.71 21.02 10

(11.11) 14

(15.56) 58

(64.44) 8

(8.89) 90

(100)

Ludhiana

One 0.46 21.68 2

(15.38) 3

(23.08) 8

(61.54)

13 (100)

Two 0.91 20.20 1

(0.63) 9

(5.70) 24

(15.19) 94

(59.49) 30

(18.99) 158

(100)

Three/More 0.85 23.90 1

(1.27) 6

(7.59) 16

(20.25) 37

(46.84) 19

(24.05) 79

(100)

Total

One 0.44 28.78 1

(3.70) 4

(14.81) 7

(25.93) 12

(44.44) 3

(11.11) 27

(100)

Two 0.76 23.67 9

(2.96) 20

(6.58) 52

(17.11) 176

(57.89) 47

(15.46) 304

(100)

Three/More 0.78 22.49 1

(0.59) 16

(9.47) 30

(17.75) 95

(56.21) 27

(15.98) 169

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Child.) Chi^2 = 12.18 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 0.70 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Child.) Chi^2 = 8.18 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 1.73 (df : 2, 247) Total (Child.) Chi^2 = 8.10 (df : 8) C = 0.13; F = 1.70 (df : 2, 497)


Table 5.56 portrays that 73.33 percent Bathinda respondents who have three/more children

agree to the statement in majority, WAS 0.71 signifies the result while in Ludhiana 0.91 WAS

signifies that 78.48 percent respondents who have two children agree to the statement in majority.

Statistical values of chi-square and F-test results in acceptance of null hypothesis which means that

respondents‟ opinion does not vary with respect to the number of children they have.

210

Table 5.57




Bathinda

Up to 10 Th 0.51 27.64 6

(5.61) 10

(9.35) 23

(21.50) 59

(55.14) 9

(8.41) 107

(100)

10-20 0.73 23.32 2

(2.13)

7

(7.45)

18

(19.15)

54

(57.45)

13

(13.83)

94

(100)

Above 20 0.71 24.26 1

(2.04) 6

(12.24) 5

(10.20) 31

(63.27) 6

(12.24) 49

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 Th 0.94 24.11 1

(1.52) 4

(6.06) 14

(21.21) 26

(39.39) 21

(31.82) 66

(100)

10-20 0.79 22.43 1

(1.15)

6

(6.90)

18

(20.69)

47

(54.02)

15

(17.24)

87

(100)

Above 20 0.88 18.56 7

(7.22) 11

(11.34) 66

(68.04) 13

(13.40) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 Th 0.68 26.90 7

(4.05) 14

(8.09) 37

(21.39) 85

(49.13) 30

(17.34) 173

(100)

10-20 0.76 22.87 3

(1.66)

13

(7.18)

36

(19.89)

101

(55.80)

28

(15.47)

181

(100)

Above 20 0.82 20.68 1

(0.68) 13

(8.90) 16

(10.96) 97

(66.44) 19

(13.01) 146

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Income) Chi^2 = 7.04 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.64 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Income) Chi^2 = 17.61* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 0.59 (df : 2, 247) Total (Income) Chi^2 = 15.47 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.09 (df : 2, 497)



Table 5.57 represents that 71.28 percent Bathinda respondents from middle income group of

Rs. 10,000 - 20,000 and 71.21 percent Ludhiana respondents from lower income group of up to Rs.

10,000 agree to the statement as WAS is 0.73 and 0.94 respectively. However, co-efficient of

variation shows more variation in the responses of respondents belonging to low income group of up

to Rs. 10,000 in both of the cities. Statistical results also explain significantly indifferent opinion of

the Bathinda respondents with respect to their income level and a few variations are just because of

sample fluctuations. Whereas, statistical values of chi-square and co-efficient of contingency witness

significant association among the respondents of Ludhiana.

211

Table 5.58




Bathinda

Matric 0.66 25.41 2

(2.82) 7

(9.86) 14

(19.72) 38

(53.52) 10

(14.08) 71

(100)

Graduate 0.55 26.48 5

(4.03) 13

(10.48) 26

(20.97) 69

(55.65) 11

(8.87) 124

(100)

Post Grad. 0.80 22.63 2

(3.64) 3

(5.45) 6

(10.91) 37

(67.27) 7

(12.73) 55

(100)

Ludhiana

Matric 0.84 22.14 4

(7.02) 14

(24.56) 26

(45.61) 13

(22.81) 57

(100)

Graduate 0.82 22.77 2

(1.67) 9

(7.50) 19

(15.83) 69

(57.50) 21

(17.50) 120

(100)

Post Grad. 0.96 18.94 4

(5.48) 10

(13.70) 44

(60.27) 15

(20.55) 73

(100)

Total

Matric 0.74 24.06 2

(1.56) 11

(8.59) 28

(21.88) 64

(50.00) 23

(17.97) 128

(100)

Graduate 0.68 24.73 7

(2.87) 22

(9.02) 45

(18.44) 138

(56.56) 32

(13.11) 244

(100)

Post Grad. 0.89 20.57 2

(1.56)

7

(5.47)

16

(12.50)

81

(63.28)

22

(17.19)

128

(100)



Education is another important factor that influences the respondents‟ decisions to a greater

extent. It is evident from Table 5.58 that majority of the postgraduate respondents 80 percent from

Bathinda and 80.82 percent from Ludhiana accepts that market has grown into a direct market meant

for the children over the past few years. WAS of 0.80 (Bathinda) and 0.96 (Ludhiana) also witnesses

the same conclusion. WAS is above 0.50 in all the cases but still the respondents‟ perception seems

to be similar with respect to education as F-test and chi-square demonstrates insignificant values.


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that except gender and income all the factors

have insignificant influence on the opinion of respondents of both the cities. Gender and income also

has a significant influence only on the perception of Ludhiana respondents whereas, for Bathinda

respondents it has insignificant impact.

212

5.2.9 Promotional Schemes like Advertisements Always Lure to Buy the Products

Table 5.59 Promotional Schemes Always Lure to Buy the Products:

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

Bathinda 0.23 36.22 23

(9.20) 51

(20.40) 51

(20.40) 95

(38.00) 30

(12.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.10 35.48 10

(4.00) 89

(35.60) 37

(14.80) 93

(37.20) 21

(8.40) 250

(100)

Total 0.17 35.96 33

(6.60) 140

(28.00) 88

(17.60) 188

(37.60) 51

(10.20) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 19.27** (df : 4) C = 0.19; t = 1.257 (df : 498) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.


When child respondents of both the cities were asked whether promotional schemes like

advertisements always lure them to buy the products it was found that respondents do not agree to

the statement in majority. Although WAS is positive in both the cities as shown in Table 5.59 but it

has a very low value 0.23 for Bathinda and 0.10 for Ludhiana respondents which demonstrates that

respondents from both the cities does not agree to the desired extent though significant value of chi-

square and co-efficient of contingency shows a good association among the respondents of two

cities.

Table 5.60 Promotional Schemes Always Lure to Buy the Products:

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

Bathinda

Male 0.27 36.70 18

(11.92) 20

(13.25) 35

(23.1) 59

(39.07) 19

(12.58) 151

(100)

Female 0.17 35.96 5

(5.05) 31

(31.31) 16

(16.16) 36

(36.36) 11

(11.11) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.11 34.73 4

(3.42) 42

(35.90) 17

(14.53) 45

(38.46) 9

(7.69) 117

(100)

Female 0.10 36.13 6

(4.51) 47

(35.34) 20

(15.04) 48

(36.09) 12

(9.02) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.20 35.94 22

(8.21) 62

(23.13) 52

(19.40) 104

(38.81) 28

(10.45) 268

(100)

Female 0.13 36.10 11

(4.74) 78

(33.62) 36

(15.52) 84

(36.21) 23

(9.91) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 14.30** (df : 4) C = 0.23; t = 0.665 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 0.43 (df : 4) C = 0.04; t = 0.096 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 8.47 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.708 (df : 498)


213

Table 5.60 demonstrates that male respondents of both the cities more agree to the statement

as compared to female respondents as WAS for male respondents is 0.27 and 0.11 as compared to

female respondents who has WAS of 0.17 and 0.11 in Bathinda and Ludhiana respectively.

However, co-efficient of variation shows that female respondents of Bathinda and male respondents

of Ludhiana are more consistent in their responses as value of CV is less in both the cases.

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

respondents only and variations are due to sample fluctuations in case of Ludhiana respondents.

Overall, it can be concluded that gender has a significant influence on the opinion of respondents

only in Bathinda city whereas it has insignificant impact on the respondents of Ludhiana.

Table 5.61

Promotional Schemes Always Lure to Buy the Products:



Bathinda

Up to 10 0.06 36.60 4

(8.00) 16

(32.00) 5

(10.00) 23

(46.00) 2

(4.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.25 36.31 11

(10.89) 16

(15.84) 23

(22.77) 39

(38.61) 12

(11.88) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.30 35.76 8

(8.08) 19

(19.19) 23

(23.23) 33

(33.33) 16

(16.16) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.08 38.96 1

(1.96) 23

(45.10) 7

(13.73) 11

(21.57) 9

(17.65) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.09 36.77 7

(6.86) 39

(38.24) 15

(14.71) 38

(37.25) 3

(2.94) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.32 31.33 2

(2.06) 27

(27.84) 15

(15.46) 44

(45.36) 9

(9.28) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.07 37.79 5

(4.95) 39

(38.61) 12

(11.88) 34

(33.66) 11

(10.89) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.08 37.01 18

(8.87) 55

(27.09) 38

(18.72) 77

(37.93) 15

(7.39) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.31 33.84 10

(5.10) 46

(23.47) 38

(19.39) 77

(39.29) 25

(12.76) 196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 13.76 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 0.72 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 20.72** (df : 8) C = 0.28; F = 3.48* (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 14.05 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 2.56 (df : 2, 497)


Some of the respondents (27.27 percent from Bathinda and 29.90 percent from Ludhiana)

from the age category of above 13 years do not agree that advertisements lure them to buy the

214

products whereas 49.49 percent from Bathinda and 54.64 percent from Ludhiana agree to the

statement. WAS is positive in all the cases except the Ludhiana respondents in the age category of

10 - 13 years ( 0.09) who do not agree in majority. Statistical value of chi-square and F-test shows

that there is insignificant differences in Bathinda respondents‟ perception with respect to age but

respondents of Ludhiana of different age groups have different opinions as value of chi-square and

F-test is significant and it is also supported by value of co-efficient of contingency i.e., 0.25. Table

5.61 concludes that majority respondents in both the cities do not agree that advertisements always

lure them to buy the products.

Table 5.62




Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.50 30.00 1

(7.14) 2

(14.29) 1

(7.14) 9

(64.29) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.18 35.53 12

(8.33)

31

(21.53)

34

(23.61)

53

(36.81)

14

(9.72)

144

(100)

Above 8th 0.27 38.23 10

(10.87) 18

(19.57) 16

(17.39) 33

(35.87) 15

(16.30) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.05 39.34 1

(2.50) 18

(45.00) 6

(15.00) 8

(20.00) 7

(17.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.01 35.88 7

(4.96)

53

(37.59)

20

(14.18)

54

(38.30)

7

(4.96)

141

(100)

Above 8th 0.33 31.83 2

(2.90) 18

(26.09) 11

(15.94) 31

(44.93) 7

(10.14) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.17 37.22 2

(3.70) 20

(37.04) 7

(12.96) 17

(31.48) 8

(14.81) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.09 35.92 19

(6.67) 84

(29.47) 54

(18.95) 107

(37.54) 21

(7.37) 285

(100)

Above 8th 0.30 35.45 12

(7.45) 36

(22.36) 27

(16.77) 64

(39.75) 22

(13.66) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 8.21 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.55 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 14.27 (df : 8) C = 0.23; F = 2.10 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Class) Chi^2 = 11.51 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 1.64 (df : 2, 497) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.

Class wise analysis of child respondents presented in Table 5.62 reveals that 71.43 percent

Bathinda respondents who are studying in class up to 5th agree to the statement in majority as WAS

is 0.50. WAS of 0.33 from Ludhiana respondents studying in class above 8th

shows that only 55.07

215

percent respondents agree to the statement. It is also to be noted that WAS of 0.01 for Ludhiana

respondents studying in class 5th

– 8th shows that if 43.26 percent respondents agree to the statement

almost equal percentage of respondents 42.55 percent disagree to the statement. Statistically

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test in both the cities accepts the null hypothesis that

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

Table 5.63




Bathinda

Nil 0.13 39.62 10

(12.05) 20

(24.10) 11

(13.25) 33

(39.76) 9

(10.84) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.36 35.12 5

(6.58) 16

(21.05) 15

(19.74) 27

(35.53) 13

(17.11) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.22 34.16 8

(8.79) 15

(16.48) 25

(27.47) 35

(38.46) 8

(8.79) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.04 41.12 5

(10.87) 13

(28.26) 10

(21.74) 11

(23.91) 7

(15.22) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.02 35.43 3

(3.06) 41

(41.84) 10

(10.20) 39

(39.80) 5

(5.10) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.21 32.71 2

(1.89) 35

(33.02) 17

(16.04) 43

(40.57) 9

(8.49) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.10 40.00 15

(11.63) 33

(25.58) 21

(16.28) 44

(34.11) 16

(12.40) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.17 35.65 8

(4.60) 57

(32.76) 25

(14.37) 66

(37.93) 18

(10.34) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.21 33.33 10

(5.08) 50

(25.38) 42

(21.32) 78

(39.59) 17

(8.63) 197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 9.62 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 0.72 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 18.29* (df : 8) C = 0.26; F = 0.82 (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 13.29 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.38 (df : 2, 497)


Table 5.63 depicts that only 52.64 percent Bathinda respondents getting pocket money up to

Rs. 100 agree to the statement in majority as WAS is 0.36. From Ludhiana, respondents getting

pocket money above Rs. 100 shows WAS of 0.21 where only 49.06 percent respondents agree to the

statement. Co-efficient of variation shows that respondents getting pocket money above Rs. 100 are

more consistent in their responses. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test for

Bathinda respondents explain that respondents getting different pocket money have similar opinion

216

regarding the statement but significant value of chi-square and co-efficient of contingency in case of

Ludhiana respondents shows significant association among respondents getting different pocket

money.


Comparative analysis of statement shows that class does not have any significant impact on

the opinion of respondents of two cities whereas gender significantly influences the opinion of

Bathinda respondents and age and monthly pocket money have significant impact on the perception

of respondents of Ludhiana.

5.2.10 Children Rely More on Advertisement and Media than Their Family

Majority of the child respondents in both the cities disagree that they rely more on

advertisement and media than their family. Only 22.80 percent Bathinda respondents and 35.20

percent Ludhiana respondents agree to the statement.

Table 5.64

Children Rely More on Advertisement and Media:



Bathinda 0.44 43.75 44

(17.60)

91

(36.40)

58

(23.20)

44

(17.60)

13

(5.20)

250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.28 43.01 41

(16.40)

85

(34.00)

36

(14.40)

80

(32.00)

8

(3.20)

250

(100)

Total 0.36 43.56 85

(17.00) 176

(35.20) 94

(18.80) 124

(24.80) 21

(4.20) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 17.10** (df : 4) C = 0.18; t = 1.483 (df : 498)



Overall negative WAS of 0.36 for total respondents, 0.44 for Bathinda respondents and

0.28 for Ludhiana respondents show that majority child respondents disagree that while purchasing

217

they rely more on advertisements and media than their family. Statistically significant value of chi-

square in Table 5.64 explains that respondents of the two cities have significant association with

each other, which is also supported by co-efficient of contingency.

Table 5.65




Bathinda

Male 0.43 43.19 25

(16.56) 55

(36.42) 40

(26.49) 22

(14.57) 9

(5.96) 151

(100)

Female 0.44 44.92 19

(19.19)

36

(36.36)

18

(18.18)

22

(22.22)

4

(4.04)

99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.23 41.52 15

(12.82) 44

(37.61) 16

(13.68) 37

(31.62) 5

(4.27) 117

(100)

Female 0.33 44.19 26

(19.55) 41

(30.83) 20

(15.04) 43

(32.33) 3

(2.26) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.34 42.48 40

(14.93)

99

(36.94)

56

(20.90)

59

(22.01)

14

(5.22)

268

(100)

Female 0.38 44.66 45

(19.40) 77

(33.19) 38

(16.38) 65

(28.02) 7

(3.02) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 4.43 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 0.096 (df : 248) Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 3.44 (df : 4) C = 0.12; t = 0.678 (df : 248) Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 6.56 (df : 4) C = 0.11; t = 0.349 (df : 498)


Table 5.65 demonstrates that although both the male and female respondents disagree to the

statement in majority but 0.44 WAS for female respondents of Bathinda and 0.33 WAS for

female respondents of Ludhiana show that they disagree to the statement in majority as they rely

more on their family. Co-efficient of variation also shows more variation in their responses as

compared to male respondents. Statistical values of chi-square and F-test result acceptance of null

hypothesis which means that respondents‟ opinion does not vary with their gender and a few

variations are due to the sample fluctuations.

218

Table 5.66




Bathinda

Up to 10 0.72 45.61 12

(24.00) 20

(40.00) 12

(24.00) 4

(8.00) 2

(4.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.46 46.46 21

(20.79) 34

(33.66) 23

(22.77) 16

(15.84) 7

(6.93) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.27 39.19 11

(11.11) 37

(37.37) 23

(23.23) 24

(24.24) 4

(4.04) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.18 43.26 10

(19.61) 11

(21.57) 10

(19.61) 18

(35.29) 2

(3.92) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.31 42.75 16

(15.69) 38

(37.25) 13

(12.75) 32

(31.37) 3

(2.94) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.31 42.75 15

(15.46) 36

(37.11) 13

(13.40) 30

(30.93) 3

(3.09) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.45 45.49 22

(21.78) 31

(30.69) 22

(21.78) 22

(21.78) 4

(3.96) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.38 44.66 37

(18.23) 72

(35.47) 36

(17.73) 48

(23.65) 10

(4.93) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.29 40.96 26

(13.27)

73

(37.24)

36

(18.37)

54

(27.55)

7

(3.57)

196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 10.80 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 2.68* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 4.87 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.27 (df : 2, 247) Total (Age) Chi^2 = 6.12 (df : 8) C = 0.11; F = 0.68 (df : 2, 497)



Age wise analysis of child respondents in Table 5.66 manifests that Bathinda respondents of

up to 10 years disagree to the statement in majority 0.72 WAS from this age category depicts that

64 percent respondents disagree to the statement, whereas in Ludhiana respondents from the age

category of 10 – 13 years and above 13 years disagree in majority as WAS is 0.31 in both the cases

and it also shows that 52.94 percent respondents of 10 – 13 years and 52.57 percent respondents of

above 13 years disagree that they rely more on advertisements. Insignificant value of chi-square in

both the cities explains that respondents of both the cities have similar opinion irrespective to their

age but significant value of F-test for Bathinda respondents show that age significantly influences

the opinion of respondents of this city.

219

Table 5.67




Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.64 47.03 3

(21.43) 6

(42.86) 3

(21.43) 1

(7.14) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.53 44.53 29

(20.14)

53

(36.81)

35

(24.31)

20

(13.89)

7

(4.86)

144

(100)

Above 8th 0.25 41.09 12

(13.04) 32

(34.78) 20

(21.74) 23

(25.00) 5

(5.43) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.10 41.38 7

(17.50) 8

(20.00) 9

(22.50) 14

(35.00) 2

(5.00) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.25 42.18 20

(14.18)

52

(36.88)

17

(12.06)

47

(33.33)

5

(3.55)

141

(100)

Above 8th 0.46 44.88 14

(20.29) 25

(36.23) 10

(14.49) 19

(27.54) 1

(1.45) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.24 43.48 10

(18.52) 14

(25.93) 12

(22.22) 15

(27.78) 3

(5.56) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.39 43.68 49

(17.19)

105

(36.84)

52

(18.25)

67

(23.51)

12

(4.21)

285

(100)

Above 8th 0.34 42.86 26

(16.15) 57

(35.40) 30

(18.63) 42

(26.09) 6

(3.73) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests



Table 5.67 again depicts the same results as shown by previous tables that majority of child

respondents disagree to the statement. WAS 0.64 from Bathinda respondents who are studying in

class up to 5th and 0.46 WAS for Ludhiana respondents studying in above 8

th class disagree to the

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

Bathinda respondents studying in class up to 5th and Ludhiana respondents studying in class above

8th. Further insignificant value of chi-square and F-test scrutinize that respondents‟ perception

appeals almost equally with respect to their class in both the cities.

220

Table 5.68




Bathinda

Nil 0.55 44.90 19

(22.89) 26

(31.33) 23

(27.71) 12

(14.46) 3

(3.61) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.17 40.28 8

(10.53) 27

(35.53) 17

(22.37) 18

(23.68) 6

(7.89) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.55 44.49 17

(18.68) 38

(41.76) 18

(19.78) 14

(15.38) 4

(4.40) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.61 48.12 11

(23.91) 19

(41.30) 4

(8.70) 11

(23.91) 1

(2.17) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.06 39.46 13

(13.27) 27

(27.55) 14

(14.29) 41

(41.84) 3

(3.06) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.35 43.02 17

(16.04) 39

(36.79) 18

(16.98) 28

(26.42) 4

(3.77) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.57 46.09 30

(23.26) 45

(34.88) 27

(20.93) 23

(17.83) 4

(3.10) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.11 39.79 21

(12.07) 54

(31.03) 31

(17.82) 59

(33.91) 9

(5.17) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.44 43.75 34

(17.26)

77

(39.09)

36

(18.27)

42

(21.32)

8

(4.06)

197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 9.97 (df : 8) C = 0.20; F = 3.08* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 11.08 (df : 8) C = 0.21; F = 3.80* (df : 2, 247)

Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 17.68* (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 7.03** (df : 2, 497) Note: Figures in Parentheses indicate percentages.


Monthly pocket money wise analysis of respondents in Table 5.68 explain that respondents

who are getting no pocket money disagree to the statement in majority in both the cities (deduced

from value of WAS 0.55 for Bathinda respondents and 0.61 for Ludhiana respondents). Bathinda

respondents who are getting pocket money above Rs. 100 also disagree to the statement in majority

as WAS is 0.55. Statistically chi-square value is significant only in case of total number of

respondents which explain that respondents getting different pocket money have different opinion

regarding the statement only when they are combined, but significant value of F-test in all the cases

shows that monthly pocket money has significant influence on respondents‟ perception in both the

cities.

221


Comparative analysis of the statement shows that age and monthly pocket money have

significant influence on the opinion of Bathinda respondents whereas only monthly pocket money

affects Ludhiana respondents‟ perception. All the other factors have insignificant influence on the

perception of respondents of the two cities.

5.2.11 Switching from One Brand to Another Gives Feeling of Adventure

Majority of the child respondents agree that they prefer switching from one brand to another

as it gives them feeling of adventure.

Table 5.69

Switching from One Brand to Another Gives Feeling of Adventure:



Bathinda 0.37 29.38 9

(3.60) 42

(16.80) 70

(28.00) 105

(42.00) 24

(9.60) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 0.62 25.14 5

(2.00) 33

(13.20) 41

(16.40) 144

(57.60) 27

(10.80) 250

(100)

Total 0.50 27.43 14

(2.80) 75

(15.00) 111

(22.20) 249

(49.80) 51

(10.20) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 16.08** (df : 4) C = 0.18; t = 2.912** (df : 498)



Table 5.69 shows the significant value of WAS 0.62 for Ludhiana respondents which explain

that majority 68.40 percent agree that they prefer switching from one brand to another. Bathinda

respondents also show positive WAS of 0.37 which explains that 51.60 percent respondents agree to

the statement. Co-efficient of variation shows that Ludhiana respondents are more consistent in their

responses as value of CV is 25.14 percent as compared to Bathinda respondents who have CV 29.38

percent. Statistically significant value of chi-square, t-test and co-efficient of contingency explain

good deal of association between the respondents of the two cities.

222

Table 5.70




Bathinda

Male 0.40 29.12 7

(4.64) 18

(11.92) 50

(33.11) 59

(39.07) 17

(11.26) 151

(100)

Female 0.32 29.52 2

(2.02)

24

(24.24)

20

(20.20)

46

(46.46)

7

(7.07)

99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 0.75 23.20 1

(0.85) 12

(10.26) 20

(17.09) 66

(56.41) 18

(15.38) 117

(100)

Female 0.50 26.86 4

(3.01) 21

(15.79) 21

(15.79) 78

(58.65) 9

(6.77) 133

(100)

Total

Male 0.56 26.69 8

(2.99)

30

(11.19)

70

(26.12)

125

(46.64)

35

(13.06)

268

(100)

Female 0.43 27.99 6

(2.59) 45

(19.40) 41

(17.67) 124

(53.45) 16

(6.90) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 11.97* (df : 4) C = 0.21; t = 0.633 (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 7.28 (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 2.175* (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 15.43** (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 1.504 (df : 498)




WAS of 0.40 (Bathinda) and 0.75 (Ludhiana) for male respondents show that male

respondents agree to the statement in majority as compared to their female counterparts. Male

respondents also show more consistency in their responses (deduced from value of CV). Statistically

significant value of chi-square and co-efficient of contingency for Bathinda respondents and total

number of respondents show the significant association between male and female respondents

whereas significant value of t-test for Ludhiana respondents explain that male and female

respondents of this city have different opinions regarding the statement. Hence, Table 5.70

concludes that gender significantly affects the perception of respondents.

223

Table 5.71




Bathinda

Up to 10 0.30 30.91 1

(2.00) 14

(28.00) 8

(16.00) 23

(46.00) 4

(8.00) 50

(100)

10 - 13 0.32 29.22 5

(4.95) 14

(13.86) 34

(33.66) 40

(39.60) 8

(7.92) 101

(100)

Above 13 0.46 28.32 3

(3.03) 14

(14.14) 28

(28.28) 42

(42.42) 12

(12.12) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 0.75 21.60 4

(7.84) 13

(25.49) 26

(50.98) 8

(15.69) 51

(100)

10 - 13 0.58 27.09 3

(2.94) 15

(14.71) 16

(15.69) 56

(54.90) 12

(11.76) 102

(100)

Above 13 0.60 24.72 2

(2.06) 14

(14.43) 12

(12.37) 62

(63.92) 7

(7.22) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 0.52 26.99 1

(0.99) 18

(17.82) 21

(20.79) 49

(48.51) 12

(11.88) 101

(100)

10 - 13 0.45 28.41 8

(3.94) 29

(14.29) 50

(24.63) 96

(47.29) 20

(9.85) 203

(100)

Above 13 0.53 26.63 5

(2.55)

28

(14.29)

40

(20.41)

104

(53.06)

19

(9.69)

196

(100)



Ludhiana respondents from all age groups show significant WAS but it is higher (0.75) in

case of respondents who are in the age group of up to 10 years and who agree to the statement in

majority (Table 5.71). Although Bathinda respondents do not have much higher WAS but it is

positive in all the cases and it is higher (0.46) in age group of above 13 years which show majority

respondents of this age group agree that they prefer switching from one brand to another. Co-

efficient of variation shows that Bathinda respondents from the age group of up to 10 years and

Ludhiana respondents from the age category of 10 – 13 years shows maximum variation in their

responses. Statistically insignificant value of chi-square and F-test shows respondents from different

age groups have indifferent opinions towards the statement.

224

Table 5.72




Bathinda

Up to 5th 0.21 31.46 5

(35.71) 2

(14.29) 6

(42.86) 1

(7.14) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 0.31 29.91 7

(4.86)

23

(15.97)

43

(29.86)

60

(41.67)

11

(7.64)

144

(100)

Above 8th 0.49 27.79 2

(2.17) 14

(15.22) 25

(27.17) 39

(42.39) 12

(13.04) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 0.70 22.70 4

(10.00) 10

(25.00) 20

(50.00) 6

(15.00) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 0.62 25.41 4

(2.84)

17

(12.06)

22

(15.60)

84

(59.57)

14

(9.93)

141

(100)

Above 8th 0.58 26.26 1

(1.45) 12

(17.39) 9

(13.04) 40

(57.97) 7

(10.14) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 0.57 25.49 9

(16.67) 12

(22.22) 26

(48.15) 7

(12.96) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 0.46 28.03 11

(3.86)

40

(14.04)

65

(22.81)

144

(50.53)

25

(8.77)

285

(100)

Above 8th 0.53 27.20 3

(1.86) 26

(16.15) 34

(21.12) 79

(49.07) 19

(11.80) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 7.79 (df : 8) C = 0.17; F = 1.08 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 6.38 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.22 (df : 2, 247) Total (Class) Chi^2 = 5.17 (df : 8) C = 0.10; F = 0.43 (df : 2, 497)


Class of a respondent does not have significant influence on the opinion of respondents

(deduced from insignificant value of chi-square and F-test). Table 5.72 depicts that 55.43 percent

Bathinda respondents studying in class above 8th

and 65 percent Ludhiana respondents studying in

class up to 5th agree to the statement in majority as WAS shows higher value of 0.70 for Ludhiana

respondents and 0.49 for Bathinda respondents. Co-efficient of variation also shows that respondents

studying in class up to 5th has maximum variation in their responses in Bathinda and shows more

consistency in their responses in Ludhiana.

225

Table 5.73




Bathinda

Nil 0.40 32.94 7

(8.43) 12

(14.46) 14

(16.87) 41

(49.40) 9

(10.84) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.37 26.71 1

(1.32) 13

(17.11) 25

(32.89) 31

(40.79) 6

(7.89) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.35 27.76 1

(1.10) 17

(18.68) 31

(34.07) 33

(36.26) 9

(9.89) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 0.63 28.93 2

(4.35) 6

(13.04) 7

(15.22) 23

(50.00) 8

(17.39) 46

(100)

Up to 100 0.62 23.20 1

(1.02) 13

(13.27) 15

(15.31) 62

(63.27) 7

(7.14) 98

(100)

Above 100 0.61 25.48 2

(1.89) 14

(13.21) 19

(17.92) 59

(55.66) 12

(11.32) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 0.48 31.61 9

(6.98) 18

(13.95) 21

(16.28) 64

(49.61) 17

(13.18) 129

(100)

Up to 100 0.51 25.07 2

(1.15) 26

(14.94) 40

(22.99) 93

(53.45) 13

(7.47) 174

(100)

Above 100 0.49 26.65 3

(1.52)

31

(15.74)

50

(25.38)

92

(46.70)

21

(10.66)

197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 16.25* (df : 8) C = 0.25; F = 0.05 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 6.17 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.01 (df : 2, 247) Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 17.31* (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 0.04 (df : 2, 497)


It is obvious from Table 5.73 that respondents who are getting no pocket money agree to the

statement in majority in both the cities. WAS of 0.40 for Bathinda respondents and 0.63 for

Ludhiana respondents signifies it. Co-efficient of variation also shows maximum variation in the

responses of respondents of this category. Statistical value of F-test concludes that respondents‟

perception seems to be similar in all categories and a few variations are due to sample fluctuations.

Chi-square value is significant in case of Bathinda respondents and total number of respondents

which means that respondents‟ perception depends significantly on their monthly pocket money but

monthly pocket money does not have any significant impact on the perception of Ludhiana

respondents and a few variations are on account of sample fluctuations.

226


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

opinion of respondents of both the cities whereas monthly pocket money significantly influences the

opinion of Bathinda respondents only. However, age and class do not have any impact on

respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana.

5.2.12 Rapid Growth in the Market for Children Products

In the recent years, there is a rapid growth in the market for children products and majority of

child respondents agree to the statement.

Table 5.74

Rapid Growth in the Market for Children Products:



Bathinda 1.05 21.73 4

(1.60) 11

(4.40) 33

(13.20) 122

(48.80) 80

(32.00) 250

(100)

Ludhiana 1.30 16.28 9

(3.60) 7

(2.80) 133

(53.20) 101

(40.40) 250

(100)

Total 1.18 19.14 4

(0.80) 20

(4.00) 40

(8.00) 255

(51.00) 181

(36.20) 500

(100)

Chi^2 = 24.01** (df : 4) C = 0.21; t = 3.560** (df : 498)


Overall WAS 1.18 reflects the strong favour of respondents to the statement (Table 5.74).

Between the two cities, Ludhiana city demonstrates the higher WAS (1.30) and shows lesser value

of CV i.e., 16.28 percent which shows that Ludhiana respondents agree more to the statement and

have more consistency in their responses. Statistically significant value of chi-square and t-test

shows the significant association among the respondents of Bathinda and Ludhiana. Co-efficient of

contingency also supports the similar conclusion.

227

Table 5.75




Bathinda

Male 0.93 24.17 4

(2.65 9

(5.96) 23

(15.23) 72

(47.68) 43

(28.48) 151

(100)

Female 1.23 16.78 2

(2.02)

10

(10.10)

50

(50.51)

37

(37.37)

99

(100)

Ludhiana

Male 1.33 16.17 4

(3.42) 4

(3.42) 58

(49.57) 51

(43.59) 117

(100)

Female 1.28 16.12 5

(3.76) 3

(2.26) 75

(56.39) 50

(37.59) 133

(100)

Total

Male 1.11 21.41 4

(1.49)

13

(4.85)

27

(10.07)

130

(48.51)

94

(35.07)

268

(100)

Female 1.26 16.43 7

(3.02) 13

(5.60) 125

(53.88) 87

(37.50) 232

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Gender) Chi^2 = 7.50 (df : 4) C = 0.17; t = 2.835** (df : 248)

Ludhiana (Gender) Chi^2 = 1.42 (df : 4) C = 0.08; t = 0.625 (df : 248)

Total (Gender) Chi^2 = 8.52 (df : 4) C = 0.13; t = 2.137* (df : 498)




Although WAS is significant in all the cases but Table 5.75 depicts that 87.88 percent female

respondents of Bathinda and 93.16 percent male respondents of Ludhiana agree to the statement in

majority. Which is witnessed by 1.23 WAS for Bathinda and 1.33 WAS for Ludhiana respondents.

Co-efficient of variation also shows that male respondents for both the cities have much variation in

their responses as compared to their female counterparts. Statistically insignificant value of chi-

square in all the cases explain that respondents have insignificant influence of their gender but

significant value of t-test for Bathinda and total number of respondents show that respondents of

different genders have different opinions regarding the statement.

228

Table 5.76




Bathinda

Up to 10 0.96 24.24 1

(2.00) 4

(8.00) 6

(12.00) 24

(48.00) 15

(30.00) 50

(100)

10 – 13 1.08 21.57 1

(0.99) 4

(3.96) 17

(16.83) 43

(42.57) 36

(35.64) 101

(100)

Above 13 1.07 20.39 2

(2.02) 3

(3.03) 10

(10.10) 55

(55.56) 29

(29.29) 99

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 10 1.22 19.43 4

(7.84) 1

(1.96) 26

(50.98) 20

(39.22) 51

(100)

10 – 13 1.31 16.94 4

(3.92) 4

(3.92) 50

(49.02) 44

(43.14) 102

(100)

Above 13 1.34 13.13 1

(1.03) 2

(2.06) 57

(58.76) 37

(38.14) 97

(100)

Total

Up to 10 1.09 22.00 1

(0.99) 8

(7.92) 7

(6.93) 50

(49.50) 35

(34.65) 101

(100)

10 – 13 1.20 19.29 1

(0.49) 8

(3.94) 21

(10.34) 93

(45.81) 80

(39.41) 203

(100)

Above 13 1.20 17.38 2

(1.02)

4

(2.04)

12

(6.12)

112

(57.14)

66

(33.67)

196

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (Age) Chi^2 = 6.56 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.34 (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (Age) Chi^2 = 6.41 (df : 8) C = 0.16; F = 0.55 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Age) Chi^2 = 12.13 (df : 8) C = 0.15; F = 0.78 (df : 2, 497)


In age wise analysis of child respondents majority of Bathinda respondents (78.21 percent)

from the age group of 10 – 13 years and Ludhiana respondents (96.90 percent) from the age category

of above 13 years agree to the statement. Table 5.76 shows WAS above 1 or nearest to 1 in all the

cases which reflects strong favour of statement from the respondents of all age categories. Co-

efficient of variation shows that respondents of above 13 years are more consistent in their

responses. But insignificant value of chi-square and F-test accepts the null hypothesis which means

that respondents of different age groups have similar opinion regarding the statement. In other

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

229

Table 5.77




Bathinda

Up to 5th 1.00 13.25 2

(14.29) 10

(71.43) 2

(14.29) 14

(100)

5th – 8th 1.03 23.57 2

(1.39)

10

(6.94)

21

(14.58)

60

(41.67)

51

(35.42)

144

(100)

Above 8th 1.10 19.27 2

(2.17) 1

(1.09) 10

(10.87) 52

(56.52) 27

(29.35) 92

(100)

Ludhiana

Up to 5th 1.20 21.43 4

(10.00) 1

(2.50) 18

(45.00) 17

(42.50) 40

(100)

5th – 8th 1.27 16.16 5

(3.55)

5

(3.55)

78

(55.32)

53

(37.59)

141

(100)

Above 8th 1.43 11.74 1

(1.45) 37

(53.62) 31

(44.93) 69

(100)

Total

Up to 5th 1.15 20.00 4

(7.41) 3

(5.56) 28

(51.85) 19

(35.19) 54

(100)

5th – 8th 1.15 20.24 2

(0.70)

15

(5.26)

26

(9.12)

138

(48.42)

104

(36.49)

285

(100)

Above 8th 1.24 16.75 2

(1.24) 1

(0.62) 11

(6.83) 89

(55.28) 58

(36.02) 161

(100)

Statistical Tests

Bathinda (Class) Chi^2 = 12.28 (df : 8) C = 0.22; F = 0.20 (df : 2, 247)

Ludhiana (Class) Chi^2 = 9.08 (df : 8) C = 0.19; F = 1.85 (df : 2, 247)

Total (Class) Chi^2 = 10.27 (df : 8) C = 0.14; F = 0.76 (df : 2, 497)


Table 5.77 manifests WAS above 1 in all the cases but it is higher in case of respondents

studying in class above 8th

(1.10 for Bathinda and 1.43 for Ludhiana) who agree to the statement in

majority. Co-efficient of variation shows maximum variation (23.57 percent) in responses of

Bathinda respondents studying in class 5th - 8th and it is maximum (21.43 percent) in responses of

Ludhiana respondents studying in class up to 5th. Although WAS is significant in all the cases but

insignificant value of chi-square and F-test explain that the class of a respondent does not have any

significant influence on the opinion of respondents of the two cities.

230

Table 5.78




Bathinda

Nil 1.24 19.34 1

(1.20) 2

(2.41) 8

(9.64) 37

(44.58) 35

(42.17) 83

(100)

Up to 100 0.92 22.96 1

(1.32) 5

(6.58) 13

(17.11) 37

(48.68) 20

(26.32) 76

(100)

Above 100 0.99 22.06 2

(2.20) 4

(4.40) 12

(13.19) 48

(52.75) 25

(27.47) 91

(100)

Ludhiana

Nil 1.26 16.67 2

(4.35) 1

(2.17) 26

(56.52) 17

(36.96) 46

(100)

Up to 100 1.39 15.49 3

(3.06) 2

(2.04) 47

(47.96) 46

(46.94) 98

(100)

Above 100 1.25 16.47 4

(3.77) 4

(3.77) 60

(56.60) 38

(35.85) 106

(100)

Total

Nil 1.25 18.35 1

(0.78) 4

(3.10) 9

(6.98) 63

(48.84) 52

(40.31) 129

(100)

Up to 100 1.18 19.62 1

(0.57) 8

(4.60) 15

(8.62) 84

(48.28) 66

(37.93) 174

(100)

Above 100 1.13 19.37 2

(1.02)

8

(4.06)

16

(8.12)

108

(54.82)

63

(31.98)

197

(100)

Statistical Tests Bathinda (MPM) Chi^2 = 8.19 (df : 8) C = 0.18; F = 3.05* (df : 2, 247) Ludhiana (MPM) Chi^2 = 3.33 (df : 8) C = 0.11; F = 1.17 (df : 2, 247)

Total (MPM) Chi^2 = 3.55 (df : 8) C = 0.08; F = 0.90 (df : 2, 497)


Monthly pocket money wise analysis of child respondents in Table 5.78 again shows that

majority of respondents getting different pocket money agree with the statement but higher WAS of

1.24 for Bathinda respondents getting no pocket money and 1.39 for Ludhiana respondents getting

pocket money up to Rs. 100 and more agree to the statement. Statistical value of chi-square

describes insignificant influence of pocket money on respondents‟ perception but significant value of

F-test for Bathinda respondents explain that respondents of this city getting different pocket money

have different opinions regarding the statement.

231


Comparative analysis of the statement concludes that only gender and monthly pocket money

significantly influence the perception of respondents of Bathinda city whereas all the other factors

have insignificant influence on the opinion of Bathinda and Ludhiana respondents.

5.3 Conclusion

From the above analysis it can be concluded that media influences the household buying

decisions due to which there is change in the pattern of market. Children today are playing an

important role in household buying decisions like never before. They inform their parents regarding

the modified use of products. Realizing this marketers have changed the market into direct market

for the children products. The children involved with their products are more likely to pay attention

to their advertising, to evaluate their brands carefully and to become brand loyal. Both parent and

children agreed in majority that media has affected the decision making role of the children and now

they are more aware of new products because of media messages like advertisements but still final

decision for buying a product is in the hands of parents. Advertisements produce brand

consciousness among the children and they enjoy switching from one brand to another as it gives a

feeling of adventure to them. Both parents and children agree that there is rapid growth in the market

for children products over the last few years because marketers have come to know that children are

the influencers of today but bread winners of tomorrow and hence, they are a force to reckon with.

chapter v - shodhgangashodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2888/17/17_chapter 5.pdf ·...

Documents