Q-1 Gender Age Cross Tabulation Case Processing Summary: Interpretation

Q-1 Gender * Age Cross tabulation
Case Processing Summary

Cases
Valid Missing Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
Gender * Age 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Gender * Age Cross tabulation

Age Total
1= 2= 3= 4= 5= 6=
Below 20 20-25 26-35 36-45 46-55 Above
Years Years Years Years Years 56 Years
Count 6 34 42 38 26 6 152
% within
3.9% 22.4% 27.6% 25.0% 17.1% 3.9% 100.0%
Gender
1=
% within
Male 85.7% 45.9% 67.7% 63.3% 76.5% 46.2% 60.8%
G Age
e % of
2.4% 13.6% 16.8% 15.2% 10.4% 2.4% 60.8%
n Total
d Count 1 40 20 22 8 7 98
e % within
1.0% 40.8% 20.4% 22.4% 8.2% 7.1% 100.0%
r Gender
2=
% within
Female 14.3% 54.1% 32.3% 36.7% 23.5% 53.8% 39.2%
Age
% of
0.4% 16.0% 8.0% 8.8% 3.2% 2.8% 39.2%
Total
Count 7 74 62 60 34 13 250
% within
2.8% 29.6% 24.8% 24.0% 13.6% 5.2% 100.0%
Gender
Total % within
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Age
% of
2.8% 29.6% 24.8% 24.0% 13.6% 5.2% 100.0%
Total
Interpretation:
Above table shows in this research project, the highest 15.20% of total in age from 36-45 years
and the lowest 2.40% of total in two similar age from below 20 years and above 56 years
which are include in male respondents. The highest 16.00% of total in age from 20-25 years
and the lowest 0.40% of total in age from below 20 years which are include in female
respondents. The highest 29.60% of total in age from 20-25 years and the lowest 2.80% of
total in age below 20 years which are include in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests:
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and Age for investor’s behaviour
towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and Age for investor’s behaviour
towards Mutual Fund.
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 14.762a 5 .011
Likelihood Ratio 15.101 5 .010
Linear-by-Linear Association 2.090 1 .148
N of Valid Cases 250
a. 2 cells (16.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is 2.74.
Interpretation:
Above table shows that, P value (0.011) is less than the significance level (0.05), It means Ho
is not accepted. H1 is accepted. So, there is a significance difference between Gender and Age
for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Q-2 Gender * Annual Household Income Cross tabulation

Cases
Valid Missing Total

Gender * Annual
250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Household Income
Gender * Annual Household Income Cross tabulation

Annual Household Income Total
1=1 Lac to 3 2=3 Lac to 3=6 Lac to 4=Above
Lac 6 Lac 9 Lac 9 Lac
Count 62 48 27 15 152
100.0
% within Gender 40.8% 31.6% 17.8% 9.9%
%
1=Male
% within Annual
G 56.9% 65.8% 60.0% 65.2% 60.8%
Household Income
e
n % of Total 24.8% 19.2% 10.8% 6.0% 60.8%
d Count 47 25 18 8 98
e 100.0
r % within Gender 48.0% 25.5% 18.4% 8.2%
%
2=Female
% within Annual
43.1% 34.2% 40.0% 34.8% 39.2%
Household Income
% of Total 18.8% 10.0% 7.2% 3.2% 39.2%
Count 109 73 45 23 250
100.0
% within Gender 43.6% 29.2% 18.0% 9.2%
%
Total % within Annual 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Household Income %
100.0
% of Total 43.6% 29.2% 18.0% 9.2%
%
Interpretation:
Above table shows in this research project, the highest 24.80% of total in Annual Household
Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and the lowest 6.00% of total in Annual Household Income from
Above 9 Lac which are include in male respondents. The highest 18.80% of total in Annual
Household Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and the lowest 3.20% of total in Annual Household
Income from Above 9 Lac which are include in female respondents. The highest 43.60% of
total in Annual Household Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and the lowest 9.20% of total in
Annual Household Income from Above 9 Lac which are include in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and Annual Household Income for
investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and Annual Household Income for
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Linear-by-Linear Association .603 1 .437
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 9.02.
Interpretation:
Above table shows that, P value (0.647) is higher than the significance level (0.05), It means
H1 is not accepted. H0 is accepted. So, there is no significance difference between Gender and
Annual Household Income for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Q-3 Occupation * Annual Household Income

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Occupation *
100.0
Annual Household 250 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
%
Income
Occupation * Annual Household Income Cross tabulation
Annual Household Income Total
1=1 Lac 2=3 Lac 3=6 Lac 4=Above
to 3 Lac to 6 Lac to 9 Lac 9 Lac
Count 20 12 12 8 52
% within 100.0
38.5% 23.1% 23.1% 15.4%
Occupation %
1=Busin % within Annual
20.8
ess Household 18.3% 16.4% 26.7% 34.8%
%
Income
20.8
% of Total 8.0% 4.8% 4.8% 3.2%
%
Count 35 26 10 0 71
% within 100.0
49.3% 36.6% 14.1% 0.0%
Occupation %
2=Servi % within Annual
28.4
ce Household 32.1% 35.6% 22.2% 0.0%
%
Income
28.4
% of Total 14.0% 10.4% 4.0% 0.0%
%
Occup
Count 4 6 3 5 18
ation
% within 100.0
22.2% 33.3% 16.7% 27.8%
Occupation %
3=Agric
% within Annual
ulture
Household 3.7% 8.2% 6.7% 21.7% 7.2%
Income
% of Total 1.6% 2.4% 1.2% 2.0% 7.2%
Count 0 2 5 1 8
% within 100.0
0.0% 25.0% 62.5% 12.5%
Occupation %
4=Retire
% within Annual
d
Household 0.0% 2.7% 11.1% 4.3% 3.2%
Income
% of Total 0.0% 0.8% 2.0% 0.4% 3.2%
Count 20 9 3 3 35
5=Hous
% within 100.0
ewife 57.1% 25.7% 8.6% 8.6%
Occupation %
% within Annual
14.0
Household 18.3% 12.3% 6.7% 13.0%
%
Income
14.0
% of Total 8.0% 3.6% 1.2% 1.2%
%
Count 30 18 12 6 66
% within 100.0
45.5% 27.3% 18.2% 9.1%
Occupation %
6=Any % within Annual
26.4
Others Household 27.5% 24.7% 26.7% 26.1%
%
Income
26.4
% of Total 12.0% 7.2% 4.8% 2.4%
%
Count 109 73 45 23 250
% within 100.0
43.6% 29.2% 18.0% 9.2%
Occupation %
% within Annual
Total 100.0
Household 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
%
Income
100.0
% of Total 43.6% 29.2% 18.0% 9.2%
%
Interpretation:
Above table shows in this research project, the highest 8.00% of total in Annual Household
Above 9 Lac which respondents are include in business occupation. The highest 14.00% of
total in Annual Household Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and the lowest 0.00% of total in
Annual Household Income from Above 9 Lac which respondents are include in service
occupation. The highest 2.40% of total in Annual Household Income from 3 Lac to 6 Lac and
the lowest 1.20% of total in Annual Household Income from 6 Lac to 9 Lac which respondents
are include in Agriculture occupation. The highest 2.00% of total in Annual Household
1 Lac to 3 Lac which respondents are retired. The highest 8.00% of total in Annual Household
Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and the lowest 1.20% of total in two similar Annual Household
Income from 3 Lac to 6 Lac and Above 9 Lac which respondents are housewife. The highest
12.00% of total in Annual Household Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and the lowest 2.40% of
total in Annual Household Income from Above 9 Lac which respondents are include in other
occupation. The highest 43.60% of total in Annual Household Income from 1 Lac to 3 Lac and
the lowest 9.20% of total in Annual Household Income from Above 9 Lac which respondents
are include in total occupation.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Occupation and Annual Household Income for
H1: There is a significance difference between Occupation and Annual Household Income for
Chi-Square Tests
Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)


a. 8 cells (33.3%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .74.
Interpretation:
Above table shows that, P value (0.001) is less than the significance level (0.05), It means H0
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Occupation and Annual Household Income for
Q-4 Gender * Spouse

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * Spouse 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Gender * Spouse Cross tabulation
Spouse Total
1=Extrem 2=Very 3=Somew 4=Slightly 5=Not at

ely Influential hat Influential all
Influential Influential Influential
Count 27 57 31 11 26 152
% within 100.0
17.8% 37.5% 20.4% 7.2% 17.1%
Gender %
1=Male
% within
77.1% 58.8% 59.6% 57.9% 55.3% 60.8%
Spouse
Gend % of Total 10.8% 22.8% 12.4% 4.4% 10.4% 60.8%
er Count 8 40 21 8 21 98
% within 100.0
8.2% 40.8% 21.4% 8.2% 21.4%
2=Fem Gender %
ale % within
22.9% 41.2% 40.4% 42.1% 44.7% 39.2%
Spouse
% of Total 3.2% 16.0% 8.4% 3.2% 8.4% 39.2%
Count 35 97 52 19 47 250
% within 100.0
14.0% 38.8% 20.8% 7.6% 18.8%
Gender %
Total % within 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Spouse %
100.0
% of Total 14.0% 38.8% 20.8% 7.6% 18.8%
%
Interpretation:
Above table shows in this research project, the highest 22.80% of total in motivation factor of
spouse from Very Influential and the lowest 4.40% of total in motivation factor of spouse from
Slightly Influential which are include in male respondents. The highest 16.00% of total in
motivation factor of spouse from Very Influential and the lowest 3.20% of total in similar two
motivation factor of spouse from Extremely Influential, slightly Influential which are include
in female respondents. The highest 38.80% of total in motivation factor of spouse from Very
Influential and the lowest 7.60% of total in motivation factor of spouse from Slightly
Influential which are include in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Spouse for
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Spouse for
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
a. 0 cells (0.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
7.45.
Interpretation:
H1 is not accepted.
H0 is accepted.
So, there is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Spouse for
Q-5 Gender * Parents

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * Parents 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Gender * Parents Cross tabulation

Parents Total
1=Extrem 2=Very 3=Somew 4=Slightly 5=Not at
ely Influential hat Influential all
Influential Influential Influential
Count 39 44 31 13 25 152
% within 100.0
25.7% 28.9% 20.4% 8.6% 16.4%
1=Mal Gender %
e % within
76.5% 67.7% 51.7% 50.0% 52.1% 60.8%
Parents
Gend % of Total 15.6% 17.6% 12.4% 5.2% 10.0% 60.8%

er Count 12 21 29 13 23 98
% within 100.0
12.2% 21.4% 29.6% 13.3% 23.5%
2=Fem Gender %
ale % within
23.5% 32.3% 48.3% 50.0% 47.9% 39.2%
Parents
% of Total 4.8% 8.4% 11.6% 5.2% 9.2% 39.2%
Count 51 65 60 26 48 250
% within 100.0
20.4% 26.0% 24.0% 10.4% 19.2%
Gender %
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Parents %
100.0
% of Total 20.4% 26.0% 24.0% 10.4% 19.2%
%
Interpretation:
parents from Very Influential and the lowest 4.40% of total in motivation factor of parents
from Slightly Influential which are include in male respondents. The highest 11.60% of total in
motivation factor of parents from Somewhat Influential and the lowest 4.80% of total in
motivation factor of parents from Extremely Influential which are include in female
respondents. The highest 26.00% of total in motivation factor of parents from Very Influential
and the lowest 10.40% of total in motivation factor of parents from Slightly Influential which
are include in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Parents for
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Parents for
Chi-Square Tests

sided)

Interpretation:
Above table shows that, P value (0.022) is less than the significance level (0.05), It means H0
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Parents for
Q-6 Gender * Friends/ Relatives
Cases
Valid Missing Total

Gender * Friends/ Relatives 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Gender * Friends/ Relatives Cross tabulation

Friends/ Relatives Total
1=Extre 2=Very 3=Some 4=Slightl 5=Not at
mely Influentia what y all
Influentia l Influentia Influentia Influentia
l l l l
Count 31 45 29 14 33 152
100.0
% within Gender 20.4% 29.6% 19.1% 9.2% 21.7%
%
1=Mal
e % within Friends/ 60.8
68.9% 66.2% 65.9% 51.9% 50.0%
Relatives %
Gen 60.8
% of Total 12.4% 18.0% 11.6% 5.6% 13.2%
der %
Count 14 23 15 13 33 98
100.0
2=Fe % within Gender 14.3% 23.5% 15.3% 13.3% 33.7%
%
male
% within Friends/ 39.2
31.1% 33.8% 34.1% 48.1% 50.0%
Relatives %
39.2
% of Total 5.6% 9.2% 6.0% 5.2% 13.2%
%
Count 45 68 44 27 66 250
100.0
% within Gender 18.0% 27.2% 17.6% 10.8% 26.4%
%
Total % within Friends/ 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Relatives %
100.0
% of Total 18.0% 27.2% 17.6% 10.8% 26.4%
%
Interpretation:
parents from Very Influential and the lowest 5.60% of total in motivation factor of parents
from Slightly Influential which are include in male respondents. The highest 13.20% of total in
motivation factor of parents from Not at all Influential and the lowest 5.20% of total in
motivation factor of parents from slightly Influential which are include in female respondents.
The highest 27.20% of total in motivation factor of parents from Very Influential and the
lowest 10.80% of total in motivation factor of parents from Slightly Influential which are
include in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Friends/
Relatives for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Friends/
Relatives for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Chi-Square Tests

sided)
Interpretation:
H1 is not accepted. H0 is accepted. So, there is no significance difference between Gender and
motivation factor of Friends/ Relatives for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Q-7 Gender * Colleagues
Cases
Valid Missing Total

Gender * Colleagues 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Gender * Colleagues Cross tabulation

Colleagues Total
1=Extrem 2=Very 3=Somew 4=Slightl 5=Not at
ely Influentia hat y all
l l l l
Gen Count 9 44 40 14 45 152
der % within 100.0
5.9% 28.9% 26.3% 9.2% 29.6%
Gender %
1=Mal
e % within 60.8
60.0% 80.0% 58.8% 53.8% 52.3%
Colleagues %
60.8
% of Total 3.6% 17.6% 16.0% 5.6% 18.0%
%
2=Fem Count 6 11 28 12 41 98
ale % within 6.1% 11.2% 28.6% 12.2% 41.8% 100.0
Gender %
% within 39.2
40.0% 20.0% 41.2% 46.2% 47.7%
Colleagues %
39.2
% of Total 2.4% 4.4% 11.2% 4.8% 16.4%
%
Count 15 55 68 26 86 250
% within 100.0
6.0% 22.0% 27.2% 10.4% 34.4%
Gender %
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Colleagues %
100.0
% of Total 6.0% 22.0% 27.2% 10.4% 34.4%
%
Interpretation:
Colleagues from Not at all Influential and the lowest 3.60% of total in motivation factor of
Colleagues from Extremely Influential which are include in male respondents. The highest
16.40% of total in motivation factor of Colleagues from Not at all Influential and the lowest
2.40% of total in motivation factor of Colleagues from Extremely Influential which are include
in female respondents. The highest 34.40% of total in motivation factor of Colleagues from
Not at all Influential and the lowest 6.00% of total in motivation factor of Colleagues from
Extremely Influential which are include in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Colleagues
for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Colleagues for
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Interpretation:
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Colleagues for
Q-8 Gender * Financial Advisors

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * Financial
250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Advisors
Gender * Financial Advisors Cross tabulation

Financial Advisors Total
1=Extre 2=Very 3=Some 4=Slightl 5=Not at
mely Influenti what y all
Influenti al Influenti Influenti Influenti
al al al al
Gen 1=Mal Count 23 34 55 18 22 152
der e
100.0
% within Gender 15.1% 22.4% 36.2% 11.8% 14.5%
%
% within 67.6% 60.7% 69.6% 46.2% 52.4% 60.8
Financial %
Advisors
60.8
% of Total 9.2% 13.6% 22.0% 7.2% 8.8%
%
Count 11 22 24 21 20 98
100.0
% within Gender 11.2% 22.4% 24.5% 21.4% 20.4%
%
2=Fe % within
male 39.2
Financial 32.4% 39.3% 30.4% 53.8% 47.6%
%
Advisors
39.2
% of Total 4.4% 8.8% 9.6% 8.4% 8.0%
%
Count 34 56 79 39 42 250
100.0
% within Gender 13.6% 22.4% 31.6% 15.6% 16.8%
%
Total % within
100.0
Financial 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
%
Advisors
100.0
% of Total 13.6% 22.4% 31.6% 15.6% 16.8%
%
Interpretation:
Financial Advisors from Somewhat Influential and the lowest 7.20% of total in motivation
factor of Financial Advisors from slightly Influential which are include in male respondents.
The highest 9.6% of total in motivation factor of Financial Advisors from Somewhat
Influential and the lowest 4.40% of total in motivation factor of Financial Advisors from
Extremely Influential which are include in female respondents. The highest 31.60% of total in
motivation factor of Financial Advisors from Somewhat Influential and the lowest 13.60% of
total in motivation factor of Financial Advisors from Extremely Influential which are include
in total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Financial
Advisors for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Financial
Chi-Square Tests
sided)
Interpretation:
H1 is not accepted.
H0 is accepted.
So, there is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Financial
Q-9 Gender * Media & Websites
Cases
Valid Missing Total
Gender * Media &

250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Websites
Gender * Media & Websites Cross tabulation

Media & Websites Total
1=Extrem 2=Very 3=Some 4=Slightl 5=Not at
ely Influentia what y all
l l l l
Count 32 35 23 16 46 152
100.0
% within Gender 21.1% 23.0% 15.1% 10.5% 30.3%
%
1=Mal
% within Media 60.8
e 65.3% 63.6% 74.2% 76.2% 48.9%
& Websites %
60.8
% of Total 12.8% 14.0% 9.2% 6.4% 18.4%
Gen %
der Count 17 20 8 5 48 98
100.0
% within Gender 17.3% 20.4% 8.2% 5.1% 49.0%
%
2=Fem
% within Media 39.2
ale 34.7% 36.4% 25.8% 23.8% 51.1%
& Websites %
39.2
% of Total 6.8% 8.0% 3.2% 2.0% 19.2%
%
Count 49 55 31 21 94 250
100.0
% within Gender 19.6% 22.0% 12.4% 8.4% 37.6%
%
Total % within Media 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
& Websites %
100.0
% of Total 19.6% 22.0% 12.4% 8.4% 37.6%
%
Interpretation:
Media & Websites from Not at all Influential and the lowest 6.40% of total in motivation
factor of Media & Websites from slightly Influential which are include in male respondents.
The highest 19.2% of total in motivation factor of Media & Websites from Not at all
Influential and the lowest 2.00% of total in motivation factor of Media & Websites from
Slightly Influential which are include in female respondents. The highest 37.60% of total in
motivation factor of Media & Websites from Not at all Influential and the lowest 8.40% of
total in motivation factor of Media & Websites from Slightly Influential which are include in
total respondents.
Chi-Square Tests
H0: There is no significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Media &
Websites for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Media &
Chi-Square Tests

Interpretation:
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Gender and motivation factor of Media &
Q-10 Annual Household Income * Safety of Principal

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Annual Household Income

250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
* Safety of Principal
Annual Household Income * Safety of Principal Cross tabulation

Safety of Principal Total
1=Strongly 2= 3=Neu 4=Dis 5=Stron
Agree Agre tral agree gly
e Disagre
e
Count 40 44 22 2 1 109
% within
Annual 40.4 100.0
36.7% 20.2% 1.8% 0.9%
Household % %
1=1 Lac to Income
3 Lac % within
37.6 43.6
Annual Safety of 54.8% 45.8% 25.0% 25.0%
% %
Household Principal
Income 17.6 43.6
% of Total 16.0% 8.8% 0.8% 0.4%
% %
Count 23 32 13 4 1 73
2=3 Lac to % within

6 Lac Annual 43.8 100.0
31.5% 17.8% 5.5% 1.4%
Household % %
Income
% within
27.4 29.2
Safety of 31.5% 27.1% 50.0% 25.0%
% %
Principal
12.8 29.2
% of Total 9.2% 5.2% 1.6% 0.4%
% %
Count 6 30 5 2 2 45
% within
Annual 66.7 100.0
13.3% 11.1% 4.4% 4.4%
Household % %
3=6 Lac to Income
9 Lac % within
25.6 18.0
Safety of 8.2% 10.4% 25.0% 50.0%
% %
Principal
12.0 18.0
% of Total 2.4% 2.0% 0.8% 0.8%
% %
Count 4 11 8 0 0 23
% within
Annual 47.8 100.0
17.4% 34.8% 0.0% 0.0%
Household % %
4=Above 9
Income
Lac
% within
Safety of 5.5% 9.4% 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
Principal
% of Total 1.6% 4.4% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
Count 73 117 48 8 4 250

% within
Annual 46.8 100.0
29.2% 19.2% 3.2% 1.6%
Household % %
Total Income
% within
100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Safety of 100.0% 100.0%
% % % %
Principal
46.8 100.0
% of Total 29.2% 19.2% 3.2% 1.6%
% %
H0: There is no significance difference between Annual Household Income and Factor
influencing of Safety of Principal for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Annual Household Income and Factor
Chi-Square Tests

Interpretation:
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Annual Household Income and Factor
Q-11 Annual Household Income * Risk

Cases
Valid Missing Total
250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
* Risk
Annual Household Income * Risk Cross tabulation

Risk Total
1=Strongl 2= 3=Neu 4=Disa 5=Strongl
y Agree Agree tral gree y
Disagree
Count 22 39 38 9 1 109
% within
Annual 100.0
20.2% 35.8% 34.9% 8.3% 0.9%
Househol %
1=1 Lac
d Income
to 3 Lac
% within
50.0% 41.9% 45.2% 37.5% 20.0% 43.6%
Risk
% of
8.8% 15.6% 15.2% 3.6% 0.4% 43.6%
Total
Count 15 30 22 6 0 73
% within
Annual 100.0
20.5% 41.1% 30.1% 8.2% 0.0%
Househol %
2=3 Lac
d Income
to 6 Lac
% within
34.1% 32.3% 26.2% 25.0% 0.0% 29.2%
Risk
% of
Annual 6.0% 12.0% 8.8% 2.4% 0.0% 29.2%
Total
Household
Count 6 16 15 6 2 45
Income
% within
Annual 100.0
13.3% 35.6% 33.3% 13.3% 4.4%
Househol %
3=6 Lac
d Income
to 9 Lac
% within
13.6% 17.2% 17.9% 25.0% 40.0% 18.0%
Risk
% of
2.4% 6.4% 6.0% 2.4% 0.8% 18.0%
Total
Count 1 8 9 3 2 23
% within
Annual 100.0
4.3% 34.8% 39.1% 13.0% 8.7%
Househol %
4=Above
d Income
9 Lac
% within
2.3% 8.6% 10.7% 12.5% 40.0% 9.2%
Risk
% of
0.4% 3.2% 3.6% 1.2% 0.8% 9.2%
Total
Count 44 93 84 24 5 250
% within
Annual 100.0
17.6% 37.2% 33.6% 9.6% 2.0%
Househol %
Total d Income
% within 100.0 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Risk % %
% of 100.0
17.6% 37.2% 33.6% 9.6% 2.0%
Total %
influencing of Risk for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Chi-Square Tests

Interpretation:
H1 is not accepted.
H0 is accepted.
So, there is no significance difference between Annual Household Income and Factor
Q-12 Annual Household Income * Regular Return

Cases
Valid Missing Total
250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
* Regular Return
Annual Household Income * Regular Return Cross tabulation

Regular Return Total
1=Stro 2= 3=Ne 4=Disa 5=Stro
ngly Agree utral gree ngly
Agree Disagr
ee
Count 38 42 21 7 1 109
% within Annual
19.3 100.0
Household 34.9% 38.5% 6.4% 0.9%
1=1 Lac to % %
Income
3 Lac
% within Regular 40.4
46.3% 45.2% 36.8% 25.0% 43.6%
Return %
% of Total 15.2% 16.8% 8.4% 2.8% 0.4% 43.6%
Count 15 29 21 7 1 73
% within Annual
28.8 100.0
Annual Household 20.5% 39.7% 9.6% 1.4%
2=3 Lac to % %
Househ Income
6 Lac
old % within Regular 40.4
18.3% 31.2% 36.8% 25.0% 29.2%
Income Return %
% of Total 6.0% 11.6% 8.4% 2.8% 0.4% 29.2%
Count 16 15 8 4 2 45
% within Annual
17.8 100.0
Household 35.6% 33.3% 8.9% 4.4%
3=6 Lac to % %
Income
9 Lac
% within Regular 15.4
19.5% 16.1% 21.1% 50.0% 18.0%
Return %
% of Total 6.4% 6.0% 3.2% 1.6% 0.8% 18.0%
Count 13 7 2 1 0 23
% within Annual
100.0
Household 56.5% 30.4% 8.7% 4.3% 0.0%
%
4=Above 9 Income
Lac % within Regular
15.9% 7.5% 3.8% 5.3% 0.0% 9.2%
Return
% of Total 5.2% 2.8% 0.8% 0.4% 0.0% 9.2%
Count 82 93 52 19 4 250
% within Annual
20.8 100.0
Household 32.8% 37.2% 7.6% 1.6%
% %
Total Income
% within Regular 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Return % % %
20.8 100.0
% of Total 32.8% 37.2% 7.6% 1.6%
% %
influencing of Regular Return for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Chi-Square Tests

Interpretation:
H1 is not accepted.
H0 is accepted.
Q-13 Annual Household Income * Tax Benefits

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Annual Household
250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
Income * Tax Benefits
Annual Household Income * Tax Benefits Cross tabulation

Tax Benefits Total
1=Strong 2= 3=Ne 4=Dis 5=Str
ly Agree Agree utral agree ongly
Disag
ree
Count 15 42 43 9 0 109
% within Annual
39.4 100.0
Household 13.8% 38.5% 8.3% 0.0%
1=1 Lac % %
Income
to 3 Lac % within Tax 41.0
53.6% 41.2% 69.2% 0.0% 43.6%
Benefits %
17.2
% of Total 6.0% 16.8% 3.6% 0.0% 43.6%
Annual %
Househol Count 7 34 28 3 1 73
d Income % within Annual
38.4 100.0
Household 9.6% 46.6% 4.1% 1.4%
2=3 Lac % %
Income
to 6 Lac % within Tax 26.7
25.0% 33.3% 23.1% 50.0% 29.2%
Benefits %
11.2
% of Total 2.8% 13.6% 1.2% 0.4% 29.2%
%
Count 4 14 25 1 1 45
% within Annual
55.6 100.0
Household 8.9% 31.1% 2.2% 2.2%
% %
Income
3=6 Lac
% within Tax 23.8
to 9 Lac 14.3% 13.7% 7.7% 50.0% 18.0%
Benefits %
10.0
% of Total 1.6% 5.6% 0.4% 0.4% 18.0%
%
Count 2 12 9 0 0 23
% within Annual
39.1 100.0
Household 8.7% 52.2% 0.0% 0.0%
4=Abov % %
Income
e 9 Lac
% within Tax
7.1% 11.8% 8.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
Benefits
% of Total 0.8% 4.8% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 9.2%
Count 28 102 105 13 2 250
% within Annual
42.0 100.0
Household 11.2% 40.8% 5.2% 0.8%
% %
Total Income
% within Tax 100.0 100. 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0%
Benefits % 0% % % %
42.0 100.0
% of Total 11.2% 40.8% 5.2% 0.8%
% %
influencing of Tax Benefits for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Chi-Square Tests

Interpretation:
H1 is not accepted.
H0 is accepted.
Q-14 Age * It is better to invest in Mutual funds rather than investing directly in shares

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * It is better to invest
in Mutual funds rather than 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
investing directly in shares
Age * It is better to invest in Mutual funds rather than investing directly in shares Cross
tabulation
It is better to invest in Mutual funds rather than Total
1=Strong 2= 3=Neut 4=Disa 5=Strong
ly Agree Agree ral gree ly
Disagree
Ag 1=Below 20 Count 1 4 0 1 1 7
e Years
% within Age 14.3% 57.1% 0.0% 14.3% 14.3% 100.0
%
% within It is
better to invest in
Mutual funds
2.0% 3.1% 0.0% 12.5% 100.0% 2.8%
rather than
investing directly
in shares
% of Total 0.4% 1.6% 0.0% 0.4% 0.4% 2.8%
Count 18 36 16 4 0 74
100.0
% within Age 24.3% 48.6% 21.6% 5.4% 0.0%
%
% within It is
2=20-25 better to invest in
Years Mutual funds 29.6
36.7% 27.5% 26.2% 50.0% 0.0%
rather than %
investing directly
in shares
29.6
% of Total 7.2% 14.4% 6.4% 1.6% 0.0%
%
Count 16 33 11 2 0 62
100.0
% within Age 25.8% 53.2% 17.7% 3.2% 0.0%
%
% within It is
32.7% 25.2% 18.0% 25.0% 0.0%
rather than %
investing directly
in shares
24.8
% of Total 6.4% 13.2% 4.4% 0.8% 0.0%
%
4=36-45 Count 9 27 23 1 0 60
Years
100.0
% within Age 15.0% 45.0% 38.3% 1.7% 0.0%
%
% within It is 18.4% 20.6% 37.7% 12.5% 0.0% 24.0
better to invest in %
Mutual funds
rather than
investing directly
in shares
24.0
% of Total 3.6% 10.8% 9.2% 0.4% 0.0%
%
Count 2 22 10 0 0 34
100.0
% within Age 5.9% 64.7% 29.4% 0.0% 0.0%
%
% within It is
4.1% 16.8% 16.4% 0.0% 0.0%
rather than %
investing directly
in shares
13.6
% of Total 0.8% 8.8% 4.0% 0.0% 0.0%
%
Count 3 9 1 0 0 13
100.0
% within Age 23.1% 69.2% 7.7% 0.0% 0.0%
%
% within It is
6=Above better to invest in
56 Years Mutual funds
6.1% 6.9% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2%
rather than
investing directly
in shares
% of Total 1.2% 3.6% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2%
Count 49 131 61 8 1 250

100.0
% within Age 19.6% 52.4% 24.4% 3.2% 0.4%
%
% within It is
better to invest in
Total Mutual funds 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
rather than %
investing directly
in shares
100.0
% of Total 19.6% 52.4% 24.4% 3.2% 0.4%
%
H0: There is no significance difference between Age and reason of It is better to invest in
Mutual funds rather than investing directly in shares for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual
Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Age and reason of It is better to invest in
Mutual funds rather than investing directly in shares for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual
Fund.
Chi-Square Tests

Interpretation:
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Age and reason of It is better to invest in Mutual
funds rather than investing directly in shares for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Q-15 Age * They provide high return with low risk.

Cases
Valid Missing Total
Age * They provide high
250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%
return with low risk.
Age * They provide high return with low risk. Cross tabulation
They provide high return with low risk. Total
1=Strong 2= 3=Ne 4=Disa 5=Strong
ly Agree Agre utral gree ly
e Disagree
Ag Count 1 2 2 2 0 7
e 28.6 100.0
% within Age 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 0.0%
% %
1=Below % within They
20 Years provide high
1.3% 2.2% 3.6% 9.5% 0.0% 2.8%
return with low
risk.
% of Total 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.0% 2.8%
Count 11 26 26 9 2 74
35.1 100.0
% within Age 14.9% 35.1% 12.2% 2.7%
% %
% within They
2=20-25
provide high 28.3 29.6
Years 14.3% 46.4% 42.9% 50.0%
return with low % %
risk.
10.4 29.6
% of Total 4.4% 10.4% 3.6% 0.8%
% %
Count 24 25 8 4 1 62
40.3 100.0
% within Age 38.7% 12.9% 6.5% 1.6%
% %
% within They
3=26-35
Years 31.2% 14.3% 19.0% 25.0%
return with low % %
risk.
10.0 24.8
% of Total 9.6% 3.2% 1.6% 0.4%
% %
4=36-45 Count 24 20 13 3 0 60
Years % within Age 40.0% 33.3 21.7% 5.0% 0.0% 100.0
% %
% within They
31.2% 23.2% 14.3% 0.0%
return with low % %
risk.
24.0
% of Total 9.6% 8.0% 5.2% 1.2% 0.0%
%
Count 15 10 5 3 1 34
29.4 100.0
% within Age 44.1% 14.7% 8.8% 2.9%
% %
% within They
5=46-55
Years 19.5% 8.9% 14.3% 25.0%
return with low % %
risk.
13.6
% of Total 6.0% 4.0% 2.0% 1.2% 0.4%
%
Count 2 9 2 0 0 13
69.2 100.0
% within Age 15.4% 15.4% 0.0% 0.0%
% %
6=Above % within They
56 Years provide high
2.6% 9.8% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2%
return with low
risk.
% of Total 0.8% 3.6% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 5.2%
Count 77 92 56 21 4 250
36.8 100.0
% within Age 30.8% 22.4% 8.4% 1.6%
% %
% within They
Total provide high 100.0 100.0 100.0
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
return with low % % %
risk.
36.8 100.0
% of Total 30.8% 22.4% 8.4% 1.6%
% %
H0: There is no significance difference between Age and reason of They provide high return
with low risk for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
H1: There is a significance difference between Age and reason of They provide high return
with low risk for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
Chi-Square Tests


Interpretation:
is not accepted.
H1 is accepted.
So, there is a significance difference between Age and reason of They provide high return with
low risk for investor’s behaviour towards Mutual Fund.
N %
Valid 250 100.0

a
Cases Excluded 0 .0
Total 250 100.0
a. Listwise deletion based on all variables in

the procedure.
Reliability Statistics
Cronbach's N of Items
Alpha
.676 55
Item-Total Statistics
Scale Mean if Scale Variance Corrected Cronbach's

Item Deleted if Item Deleted Item-Total Alpha if Item
Correlation Deleted
Gender 125.1280 154.072 .243 .671

Age 123.2040 156.661 -.031 .685
Occupation 123.1160 148.432 .101 .683
Education 123.9760 159.863 -.134 .691
Annual Household Income 124.5920 151.849 .181 .671
Do you know about mutual
125.5200 157.263 .000 .676
fund?
Do you invest in mutual
125.5200 157.263 .000 .676
fund?
From how many years
have you been investing in 124.5560 154.818 .065 .677
mutual funds?
How did you know about
122.7000 150.420 .077 .684
mutual funds?
What percentage of your
annual income do you 124.8480 156.595 .005 .678
invest in Mutual Fund?
In which kind of Mutual
Fund, you would like to 125.0240 156.457 .044 .676
invest?
Axis Fund 124.6760 156.638 .054 .676
DSP Black Rock 124.7240 158.016 -.090 .679
Aditya Birla Sun Life 124.6800 154.524 .285 .671
Reliance Fund 124.8840 156.248 .065 .675
UTI Fund 124.7160 156.871 .023 .676
Kotak Fund 124.7640 157.908 -.077 .679
SBI MF 124.7640 156.061 .095 .675
Franklin Templeton 124.5880 157.175 .004 .676
ICICI Prudential Fund 124.7680 157.199 -.011 .677
Sundaram BNP Paribas 124.7240 158.811 -.168 .681
Motilal Oswal Fund 124.5800 157.152 .009 .676
HDFC Fund 124.5880 158.299 -.173 .679
L&T Fund 124.8400 157.846 -.068 .679
Other 124.6160 156.495 .092 .675
Which asset class do you
123.8440 153.056 .037 .685
invest in?
Which type of funds do you
125.0240 155.260 .098 .675
prefer to invest in?
How would you like to
receive the returns every 124.5600 155.388 .076 .675
year?
When you invest in Mutual
Funds which mode of 124.8920 156.032 .049 .676
investment do you prefer?
Spouse 123.7360 148.316 .225 .667
Parents 123.7000 140.492 .452 .649
Friends/ Relatives 123.5160 139.440 .451 .648
Colleagues 123.0680 140.329 .486 .647
Financial Advisors 123.5240 143.680 .395 .655
Professional Bodies 122.9720 139.682 .476 .647
Media & Websites 123.2960 135.149 .527 .639
Safety of Principal 124.5080 152.179 .201 .670
Risk 124.1080 154.683 .070 .676
Regular Return 124.4400 149.010 .301 .664
Tax Benefits 124.0840 152.423 .216 .669
Transparency 123.6560 153.753 .122 .674
Flexibility 123.8240 152.025 .175 .671
Regular Income 123.7880 149.043 .348 .663
Liquidity 123.4160 148.477 .301 .663
Objective of investment in
123.6080 144.030 .179 .675
Mutual Fund?
It is a good investment
124.7080 155.268 .084 .675
instrument
It is better to invest in
Mutual funds rather than 124.3960 157.059 -.020 .680
They give assured and
124.2560 156.135 .021 .678
consistent return
They provide high return
124.3880 155.475 .032 .679
with low risk.
Less calculation is required
before investing when 123.8560 152.373 .163 .672
compared to share market.
Very simple to invest &
monitor fund performance 123.8040 152.327 .179 .671
on a regular basis
Mutual Funds provide the
benefit of cheap access to 123.7080 148.850 .290 .664
expensive stocks
Mutual funds diversify the
risk of the investor by
123.5040 146.388 .375 .659
investing in a basket of
assets
Professional fund
managers manage them
with in-depth research 123.4400 144.063 .429 .654
inputs from investment
analysts.
Satisfaction level for
investment in Mutual 124.3600 154.496 .122 .674
Fund?

Q-1 Gender Age Cross Tabulation Case Processing Summary: Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Q-1 Gender Age Cross Tabulation Case Processing Summary: Interpretation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q-1 Gender Age Cross Tabulation Case Processing Summary: Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Q-1 Gender * Age Cross tabulation

Case Processing Summary

Gender * Age Cross tabulation

Q-2 Gender * Annual Household Income Cross tabulation

Valid Missing Total

Gender * Annual Household Income Cross tabulation

Q-3 Occupation * Annual Household Income

Case Processing Summary

Pearson Chi-Square 37.587a 15 .001

Linear-by-Linear Association .290 1 .590

N of Valid Cases 250

Q-4 Gender * Spouse

Gender * Spouse 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%

Gender * Spouse Cross tabulation

1=Extrem 2=Very 3=Somew 4=Slightly 5=Not at

Case Processing Summary

Gender * Parents 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%

Gender * Parents Cross tabulation

Gend % of Total 15.6% 17.6% 12.4% 5.2% 10.0% 60.8%

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

Linear-by-Linear Association 8.736 1 .003

N of Valid Cases 250

Q-6 Gender * Friends/ Relatives

Case Processing Summary

Valid Missing Total

Gender * Friends/ Relatives 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%

Gender * Friends/ Relatives Cross tabulation

Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-

Q-7 Gender * Colleagues

Case Processing Summary

Valid Missing Total

Gender * Colleagues 250 100.0% 0 0.0% 250 100.0%

Gender * Colleagues Cross tabulation

Q-8 Gender * Financial Advisors

Case Processing Summary

Gender * Financial Advisors Cross tabulation

Q-9 Gender * Media & Websites

Case Processing Summary

Gender * Media &

Gender * Media & Websites Cross tabulation

Pearson Chi-Square 10.575a 4 .032

Case Processing Summary

Annual Household Income

Annual Household Income * Safety of Principal Cross tabulation

2=3 Lac to % within

Count 73 117 48 8 4 250

Pearson Chi-Square 22.440a 12 .033

Q-11 Annual Household Income * Risk

Case Processing Summary

Annual Household Income * Risk Cross tabulation

Pearson Chi-Square 14.369a 12 .278

Q-12 Annual Household Income * Regular Return

Annual Household Income * Regular Return Cross tabulation

Pearson Chi-Square 16.325a 12 .177

Case Processing Summary

Annual Household Income * Tax Benefits Cross tabulation

Pearson Chi-Square 12.643a 12 .396