Financial Goals and Saving Habits of Senior High Students

RESEARCH PAPER No.
2018-
FINANCIAL GOALS AND SAVING HABITS OF SENIOR HIGH

STUDENTS
Judelein Bungalan, John Paul Baylon, Rankine Banguiyao, Rosaleah Ashley Chog-ap, Sharmela
Flores, Maria Fatima Francisco, Jill Kathleen Columna, Carazelli Furigay
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH
We envision Saint Louis University as an excellent, missionary, and

transformative educational institution zealous in the formation of
human resources who are imbued with the Christian spirit and who
are competent, creative, and socially involved.
SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTANCY, MANAGEMENT, COMPUTING AND

INFORMATION STUDIES
SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY
PHILIPPINES
DECEMBER 2018
FINANCIAL GOALS AND SAVING HABITS OF SENIOR HIGH
STUDENTS
Judelein B. Bungalan, Rankine B. Banguiyao, John Paul P. Baylon, Rosaleah Ashley D.
Chog-ap, Sharmela B. Flores, Maria Fatima C. Francisco, Jill Kathleen S. Columna, Carazelli A.
Furigay
Abstract
The primary purpose of the study is to know the saving habits of the Senior High students and its
relation to their financial goals. Secondarily, the researcher also studied the factors that affect
the choice of saving method of the students. The researchers grouped the respondents based on
their level of priority for saving and determined their saving habit score through the likert items.
The first study reveals that the level of priority for personal wants and personal needs have a
significant effect on the saving habit of a student. Other indicated reasons for saving has no
significance to their saving habits. The latter study shows that gender is significantly related to
a student’s choice of saving method where males prefer coin banks/piggy banks while females
prefer saving accounts. All other indicated demographics are independent from the saving
method variable. The government and financial management should provide other saving
preferences that are applicable for the youth. Educators and parents should emphasize more on
the importance of saving and encourage them to have a properly aligned priorities.
Key words: Financial goals, Savings Habit, Senior High Students

Introduction
The economic performance of the Philippines in the last three decades has been mediocre
relative to its Asian neighbors. Savings are key to the country’s development, as these are major
sources of productive investments that will generate more output and employment. There is
deemed one-way relationship between savings and economic growth (Misztal, 2011). Growth
theories have shown that saving is important for economic growth. Mapa and Baliscan (2004),
used data from 80 developed and developing countries for the period 1975 to 2000 to show
positive and significant effect of gross domestic saving to economic growth. In their study, the
authors concluded that a one-percentage point increase in GDS (Gross Domestic Savings)
increases the yearly average growth rate of income per person by 5 basis points, all things being
the same.
The BSP data as of 2017 shows that 43.2 percent of Filipinos are considered savers but 68.3
percent of this, saves their money at home. The same survey also reported that 86 percent of the
population do not have bank accounts. Statistics show that most Filipinos are depositing their
saving of a merely 10 percent or less of their income. This kind of saving habits and other
factors leads to the gross savings rate of the country to decline from the maximum of 36.5
percent in 1981 to a mere 15.43 percent in 2017 (The World Bank).
In solution, the government are pushing to increase financial inclusion by boosting access to
bank accounts and other financial services. Also, the BSP is undertaking an economic and
financial literacy campaign, which involves the conduct of road shows in various provinces and
in other countries hosting overseas Filipino workers. Government have been encouraging the
public, specially the youth who occupies bulk of country’s population, to engage more in the
saving and investment activity. Youth savings can promote asset-building, instill good financial
habits, and improve a country’s overall gross savings rate. However, it has been reported that
students, mostly in college, have critical spending habits and are likely to face bankruptcy at a
young age if they do not manage their personal finances, specially their savings (Syahrom et al,
2017). In a 2006 study of the NDSU Extension Service, fifty-six (56) percent of teenagers
consider themselves "spenders" rather than "savers".
This paper intends to determine the factors that can affect the saving habits of the youth,
which is represented by the Senior High students. Students as the target respondent were chosen
due to their significant future contribution to the country. The study intends to achieve two main
objectives namely: 1.) to determine if there is a significant effect of factors such as gender, grade
level, course and weekly allowance on a student’s choice of saving method; and 2.) to know the
relationship between the student’s financial goal and their saving habits.
This study is conducted to identify the factors that affect the saving habits of students and
create financial awareness among them. Understanding the factors that influence consumer
savings is of great interest to government agencies, financial services firms, and banks, as well
as consumers themselves.
The result of this study will add relevant information to the body of knowledge on the
savings behavior. This can help educators and regulators to tailor their discussion in a way that
they can better address the differences on the savings habit of the students. Results of the study
can be informative to financial institutions in a way that it can help them design their financial
products that fits the behavior of students in saving and investing. Government can use findings
to help them come up with a strategy that can better encourage students to save to promote
economic growth and stability.
This study can also provide information that will guide other parents to monitor their
children effectively in the aspect of money management.
Related Literature
In economics, saving is often considered to be what is left of disposable income after
consumption is deducted (Lunt & Livingstone, 1991), but to the average person, saving refers to
money set aside and other assets to protect one from future encumbrance or simply for
purchasing goods and services (Katona, 1975; Lunt & Livingstone, 1991).
Savings habits were defined as frequently practiced behaviors, done without a particular
sense of awareness, with the goal of freeing up funds for saving or debt reduction. There are
three (3) categories of saving habits porposed by Katona (1975): a) Contractual saving where
one makes routine installment payments for an asset, which is forced or obligatory; b)
Discretionary saving, where one deliberately saves; and c) Residual saving or Irregular saving
where one saves by default.
A goal is defined as a desired end state that people try to achieve through cognitive
regulation (Ford, 1992). Saving goals are viewed as reasons or purposes that lead households to
save and can be measured with the question of, “What is your most important reason for
saving?” (Browning & Lusardi, 1996; DeVaney, Anong, & Whirl, 2007; Xiao & Noring, 1994).
Keynes (1936) identified eight (8) saving motives namely: a) Precautionary motive; b) Life-
cycle motive; c) Intertemporal substitution motive; d) Improvement motive; e) Independence
motive; f) Enterprise motive; g) Bequest motive; and h) Avarice motive.

The current study examines the predictive influence of the saving motives, identified by
Keynes, on saving habits which is based on the discretionary and residual saving classifications.
Research Design and Methodology
This study used a questionnaire-checklist which was adapted from various past studies
related to the topic. The technique requires less skill and sensitivity but have a high response
rate. The research sampling technique that was used in this study is random sampling. Random
sampling is used to ensure good estimates of the population characteristics because it has a little
relevance of bias.
Population of the study will be the Senior High students of Baguio City National High
School. Yamane’s formula was used to compute the sample size for the Grade 11 and 12. A
result of 287 students was chosen as representative for the study.
Both Ordinal and nominal scales are used to measure the demographic profile of
respondents. The nominal scale includes gender, course, grade level and saving method. Under
ordinal scale is the weekly allowance.
For the first objective of the study, the independent variables are the gender, course and
grade level while the dependent variable is the saving method of a student. The latter objective
involves the reasons for saving as the independent variable and the saving habits of the student
as dependent variable
Result and Discussion
Methodology
Tests of Association
Pearson’s Chi – Square:
Where: is the observed frequencies for each cell, is the expected frequency for each cell.
Fisher’s Exact Test:
Where,
And is the number of rows while is the number of columns in the contingency table.
Test on Column Proportions
Section 1. Demographic profile
Table 1.1. Distribution of Respondents based on Gender
Frequency Percentage
Male 116 40.4
Female 171 59.6
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.1 shows that the majority of the respondents were female at 171 (59.6%), while male
respondents were at 116 (40.4%).
Table 1.2. Distribution of Respondents based on Grade Level
Grade 11 118 41.1
Grade 12 169 58.9
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.2 shows that the majority of the respondents were Grade 12 at 169 (58.9%), while Grade
11 respondents were at 118 (41.1%).
Table 1.3. Distribution of Respondents based on Senior High School Strand
ABM 62 21.6
HUMSSS 40 13.9
GAS 33 11.5
Arts and Design 37 12.9
Sports 32 11.1
Industrial Arts 40 13.9
Home Economics 43 15.0
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.3 shows that most respondents were ABM students at 62 (21.6%), while Sports students
were 32 (11.1%).
Table 1.4. Distribution of Respondents based on Weekly Allowances
Below Php 500 172 60.4
Php 500 - Php 1000 105 36.8
Above Php 1000 8 2.8
Total 285 100.0
Table 1.4 shows that majority of the respondents have an allowance Below Php 500 at 172
(60.4%), while only 8 (2.8%) respondents have an allowance Above Php 1,000.
Table 1.5. Distribution of Respondents based on Preferred Savings Method
Coin / Piggy Bank 144 50.2
Savings Account 68 23.7
Peso Challenge 75 26.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.5 shows that majority of the respondents prefer Coin / Piggy Bank method at 144 (50.2%),
while only 68 (23.7%) prefer Savings Account.

Table 1.6. Ranking of Emergency as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 107 37.3
Rank 2 52 18.1
Rank 3 59 20.6
Rank 4 23 8.0
Rank 5 22 7.7
Rank 6 13 4.5
Rank 7 11 3.8
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.6 shows that most respondents at 107 (37.3%) ranked Emergency as a Reason for Saving
as Rank 1, while only 11 (3.8%) respondents ranked it as Rank 7.
Table 1.7. Ranking of Personal Wants as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 36 12.5
Rank 2 25 8.7
Rank 3 15 5.2
Rank 4 27 9.4
Rank 5 57 19.9
Rank 6 55 19.2
Rank 7 72 25.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.7 shows that most respondents at 72 (25.1%) ranked Personal Wants as a Reason for Saving
as Rank 1, while only 15 (5.2%) respondents ranked it as Rank 3.

Table 1.8. Ranking of College Education as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 44 15.3
Rank 2 43 15.0
Rank 3 70 24.4
Rank 4 43 15.0
Rank 5 21 7.3
Rank 6 22 7.7
Rank 7 44 15.3
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.8 shows that majority of the respondents at 70 (24.4%) ranked College Education as a
Reason for Saving at Rank 3, while only 21 (7.7%) respondents ranked it as Rank 5.
Table 1.9. Ranking of Financial Security as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 33 11.5
Rank 2 77 26.8
Rank 3 61 21.3
Rank 4 54 18.8
Rank 5 24 8.4
Rank 6 31 10.8
Rank 7 7 2.4
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.9 shows that majority of the respondents at 77 (26.8%) ranked Financial Security as a
Table 1.10. Ranking of Boosting Self - Reliance as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 10 3.5
Rank 2 22 7.7
Rank 3 11 3.8
Rank 4 58 20.2
Rank 5 79 27.5
Rank 6 63 22.0
Rank 7 44 15.3
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.10 shows that majority of the respondents at 79 (27.5%) ranked Boosting Self – Reliance
as a Reason for Saving at Rank 5, while only 10 (3.5%) respondents ranked it as Rank 1.
Table 1.11. Ranking of Personal Needs as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 44 15.3
Rank 2 46 16.0
Rank 3 57 19.9
Rank 4 49 17.1
Rank 5 42 14.6
Rank 6 40 13.9
Rank 7 9 3.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.11 shows that majority of the respondents at 57 (19.9%) ranked Personal Needs as a
Table 1.12. Ranking of Short Term Goals as a Reason for Saving
Rank 1 15 5.2
Rank 2 21 7.3
Rank 3 14 4.9
Rank 4 32 11.1
Rank 5 41 14.3
Rank 6 64 22.3
Rank 7 100 34.8
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.12 shows that majority of the respondents at 100 (34.8%) ranked Short Term Goals as a
Reason for Saving at Rank 7, while only 14 (4.9%) respondents ranked it at Rank 3.
Table 1.13. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 1
Strongly Disagree 20 7.0
Disagree 21 7.3
Agree 131 45.6
Strongly Agree 115 40.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.13 shows that most of the respondents at 131 (45.6%) agreed to the statement “I prefer
saving on a regular basis”, while only 20 (7.0%) strongly disagreed.

Disagree 73 25.4
Agree 124 43.2
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.14 shows that most of the respondents at 124 (43.2%) agreed to the statement “I save a
fixed amount of money.”, while only 29 (10.1%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 39 13.6
Agree 141 49.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.15 shows that most of the respondents at 141 (49.1%) agreed to the statement “I save only
what is left of my allowance.”, while only 20 (7.0%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 82 28.6
Agree 115 40.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.16 shows that most of the respondents at 115 (40.1%) agreed to the statement “I regularly
keep track of my savings.”, while only 30 (10.5%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 56 19.5
Agree 141 49.1
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.17 shows that most of the respondents at 141 (49.1%) agreed to the statement “I reduce
the cost of my spending to have more savings.”, while only 15 (5.2%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 91 31.7
Agree 96 33.4
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.18 shows that most of the respondents at 96 (33.4%) agreed to the statement “I save only
when I have a goal.”, while only 29 (10.1%) strongly disagreed.

Disagree 46 16.0
Agree 120 41.8
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.19 shows that most of the respondents at 120 (41.8%) agreed to the statement “I have a clear
and specific goal for saving.”, while only 18 (6.3%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 15 5.2
Agree 97 33.8
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.20 shows that most of the respondents at 163 (56.8%) strongly agreed to the statement “I
am more challenged to save when I have a goal.”, while only 12 (4.2%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 26 9.1
Agree 111 38.7
Total 287 100.0
am more disciplined to save when I have a goal.”, while only 10 (3.5%) strongly disagreed.
Disagree 54 18.8
Agree 99 34.5
Total 287 100.0
am more pressured to save because I have a goal.”, while only 24 (8.4%) strongly disagreed.
Table 1.23. Distribution of Respondents based on Senior High School Track
Academic 135 47.0
Arts and Design 37 12.9
Sports 32 11.1
Technical Vocational 83 28.9
Total 287 100.0
Table 1.23 shows that majority of the respondents at 135 (47.0%) were under Academic Track,
while only 32 (11.1%) were under Sports Track.

Section 2. Relationship between Profiles and Saving Method
Section 2.1 Relationship based on Respondents’ Gender and Preferred Savings Method
Table 2.2.1. Contingency table between Respondents’ Gender and Preferred Savings Method
Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Gender
Method Bank Account Challenge
Count 71a 16b 29a, b
Male
% within 49.3% 23.5% 38.7%
Count 73a 52b 46a, b
Female
% within 50.7% 76.5% 61.3%
Table 2.2.2. Tests of Association between Respondents’ Gender and Preferred Savings Method
Value df Exact Significance

Pearson Chi-Square 12.873a 2 .002
Likelihood Ratio 13.376 2 .001
Fisher's Exact Test 13.127 .001
Table 2.1 shows the contingency table between the respondents’ gender and their preferred savings
method, while table 2.2 shows the results of the tests of association between the two variables. The
Pearson Chi –Square, Likelihood Ratio, and Fisher’s Exact test statistics all have significance values
which are less than the level of significance which is at 0.05. This indicates that the two variables are
significantly related with each other. To identify the details regarding how the two variables are related, a
test on column proportions was performed. The subscripts in the contingency table gives the following
results:
 The proportion of male respondents whose preferred savings method is through coin / piggy bank
is significantly higher than the proportion of the same respondents whose preferred savings
method is through savings account but is comparably similar to the proportion of the same
respondents whose preferred savings method is through the peso challenge.
 The proportion of female respondents whose preferred savings method is through coin / piggy
bank is significantly lower than the proportion of the same respondents whose preferred savings
method is through savings account but is comparably similar to the proportion of the same
respondents whose preferred savings method is through the peso challenge.
The results show that male respondents are more likely to prefer coin / piggy bank more than
through a savings account as their savings method, while female respondents are the opposite as they
prefer savings account more than coin / piggy bank as their savings method.
Section 2.2 Relationship based on Respondents’ Grade level and Preferred Savings Method
Table 2.2.1. Contingency table between Respondents’ Grade Level and Preferred Savings Method
Grade Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Level Method Bank Account Challenge
Count 64a 25a 29a
Grade 11
% within 44.4% 36.8% 38.7%
Count 80a 43a 46a
Grade 12
% within 55.6% 63.2% 61.3%
Table 2.2.2. Contingency table between Respondents’ Grade Level and Preferred Savings Method

Table 2.2.1 shows the contingency table between the respondents’ grade level and their preferred
savings method, while table 2.2.2 shows the results of the tests of association between the two variables.
The Pearson Chi –Square, Likelihood Ratio, and Fisher’s Exact test statistics all have significance values
which are greater than the level of significance which is at 0.05. This indicates that the two variables are
independent from each other. In other words, there is no significant relationship between the respondents’
grade level and their preferred savings method; that is, there is no difference in the preferred savings
method between grade 11 and grade 12 respondents.
Section 2.3 Relationship based on Respondents’ Gender and Preferred Savings Method
Table 2.3.1. Contingency table between Respondents’ Weekly Allowance and Preferred Savings Method
Weekly Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso
Allowance Method Bank Account Challenge

Below Count 93a 35a 44a
Php 500 % within 64.6% 51.5% 60.3%
Php 500 - Count 50a 29a 26a
% within 34.7% 42.6% 35.6%
Php 1000
Above Count 1a 4a 3a
Php 1000 % within .7% 5.9% 4.1%
Table 2.3.2. Tests of Association between Respondents’ Weekly Allowance and Preferred Savings
Method

Table 2.3.1 shows the contingency table between the respondents’ weekly allowance and their
preferred savings method, while table 2.3.2 shows the results of the tests of association between the two
variables. The Pearson Chi –Square, Likelihood Ratio, and Fisher’s Exact test statistics all have
significance values which are greater than the level of significance which is at 0.05. This indicates that
the two variables are independent from each other. In other words, there is no significant relationship
between the respondents’ weekly allowance and their preferred savings method; that is, there is no
difference in the preferred savings method between respondents with varying weekly allowances.
Section 2.4 Relationship based on Respondents’ SHS Track and Preferred Savings Method
Table 2.4.1. Contingency table between Respondents’ SHS Track and Preferred Savings Method
Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

SHS Track
Method Bank Account Challenge
Count 69a 32a 34a
Academic
% within 47.9% 47.1% 45.3%
Arts and Count 19a 8a 10a
Design % within 13.2% 11.8% 13.3%

Count 17a 8a 7a
Sports
% within 11.8% 11.8% 9.3%
Technical Count 39a 20a 24a
% within 27.1% 29.4% 32.0%
Vocational
Table 2.4.2. Tests of Association between Respondents’ SHS Track and Preferred Savings Method

Pearson Chi-Square .879a 6 .990
Likelihood Ratio .888 6 .990
Fisher’s Exact Test .935 .991
Table 2.4.1 shows the contingency table between the respondents’ SHS track and their preferred
savings method, while table 2.4.2 shows the results of the tests of association between the two variables.
The Pearson Chi –Square, Likelihood Ratio, and Fisher’s Exact test statistics all have significance values
which are greater than the level of significance which is at 0.05. This indicates that the two variables are
independent from each other. In other words, there is no significant relationship between the respondents’
SHS track and their preferred savings method; that is, there is no difference in the preferred savings
method between respondents under different Senior High School tracks.
Section 3. Relationship between Financial Goals and Savings Habits
Section 3.1 Classification of Respondents and Savings Habit Score
In determining the existence of a relationship between differences in financial goals and savings
habits, the respondents were grouped based on the level of priority they have given to a certain reason for
saving, while their responses for each of the likert item questions regarding their savings habit were used
to determine a savings habit score which numerically describes the savings habit of the respondents. The
level of priority is based on the rank they have provided for each of the reasons for saving. Table 3.1.1
shows how the responses were classified into three categories.

Table 3.1.1. Level of Priority for Different Reasons for Saving
Range Level of Priority

Rank 1 – 2 Top Priority
Rank 3 – 5 Middle Priority
Rank 6 – 7 Last Priority
Meanwhile, the savings habit score was determined by the following formula:
where is the numerical response of the respondent for item . It is worth noting that items 3 and 6
reflect a lower savings habit for a higher numerical response, hence the responses were subtracted.
Section 3.2 Relationship between Savings Habit Scores and Level of Priority for Emergency
Table 3.2.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Emergency
Frequency Mean Std. Deviation

Top Priority 159 18.68 3.940
Middle Priority 104 18.98 4.628
Last Priority 24 17.92 3.694
Table 3.2.2. ANOVA Table for the Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Emergency
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 22.818 2 11.409 .652 .522
Within Groups 4972.436 284 17.509
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.2.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority for
emergencies in terms of savings. Respondents who consider emergency as a top priority for saving have a
mean savings habit score of 18.68, while those who place emergency as a middle priority for saving have
an average savings habit scores of 18.98. On the other hand, respondents who consider emergency as one
of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 17.92. To evaluate whether the
differences in the savings habit scores among the varying levels of priorities for emergency is significant,
an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.2.2 shows the corresponding ANOVA table. The
significance value of the ANOVA is at 0.522, which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. This
indicates the mean savings habit scores among the three level of priorities for emergency are not
significantly different from each other.
Section 3.3 Relationship between Savings Habit Scores and Level of Priority for Personal Wants
Table 3.3.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Personal
Wants

Top Priority 61 18.10 4.106
Table 3.3.2. ANOVA Table for the Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Emergency
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 138.319 2 69.159 4.044 .019
Within Groups 4856.936 284 17.102
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.3.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority
for personal wants in terms of saving. Respondents who consider personal wants as a top priority for
saving have a mean savings habit score of 18.10, while those who place personal wants as a middle
priority for saving have an average savings habit scores of 18.11. On the other hand, respondents who
consider personal wants as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 19.50.
To evaluate whether the differences in the savings habit scores among the varying levels of priorities for
personal wants is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.3.2 shows the
corresponding ANOVA table. The significance value of the ANOVA is at 0.019, which is less than the
level of significance of 0.05. This indicates the mean savings habit scores among the three level of
priorities for personal wants are significantly different from each other. To determine which groups have
significantly different average savings habit scores, a post – hoc analysis was performed.
Table 3.3.3.Post – Hoc Analysis on the difference in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for
Personal Wants
Priority on Personal Wants Mean Difference Significance

Middle Priority -.013 .985
Top Priority
Last Priority -1.406* .030
Top Priority .013 .985
Middle Priority
Last Priority -1.393* .013
Top Priority 1.406* .030
Last Priority
Middle Priority 1.393* .013
Table 3.3.3 shows the LSD post – hoc analysis results for the analysis of variance performed on the
savings habit scores among varying levels of priority for personal wants. The results are summarized as
follows:
 The average savings habit score of respondents who consider personal wants as a top priority for
saving is significantly lower than those who consider personal wants as the last priority, but is
not significantly different from those who consider personal wants as a middle priority.
 The average savings habit score of respondents who consider personal wants as a middle priority
for saving is significantly lower than those who consider personal wants as the last priority.
The results show that those who prioritize personal wants have a significantly lower savings
habit compared to those who do not prioritize it.
Section 3.4 Relationship between Savings Habit Score and Level of Priority for College Education
Table 3.4.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for College
Education

Table 3.4.2. ANOVA Table for Testing Differences in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority
for College Education
Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Squares Square
Between Groups 31.394 2 15.697 .898 .409
Within Groups 4963.861 284 17.478
Total 4995.254 286
for college education in terms of saving. Respondents who consider college education as a top priority for
saving have a mean savings habit score of 19.05, while those who place college education as a middle
consider college education as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 18.15.
college education is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.4.2 shows the
corresponding ANOVA table. The significance value of the ANOVA is at 0.409, which is greater than
the level of significance of 0.05. This indicates the mean savings habit scores among the three level of
priorities for college education are not significantly different from each other.
Section 3.5 Relationship between Savings Habit Scores and Level of Priority for Financial Security
Table 3.5.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Financial
Security

Top Priority 110 19.01 3.943
for Financial Security
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 42.264 2 21.132 1.212 .299
Within Groups 4952.990 284 17.440
Total 4995.254 286
for financial security in terms of saving. Respondents who consider financial security as a top priority for
saving have a mean savings habit score of 19.01, while those who place financial security as a middle
consider financial security as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 17.79.
financial security is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.5.2 shows the
priorities for financial security are not significantly different from each other.
Section 3.6 Relationship between Savings Habit Scores and Level of Priority for Boosting Self-Reliance
Table 3.6.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Boosting Self-
Reliance

for Boosting Self – Reliance
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 11.929 2 5.965 .340 .712
Within Groups 4983.325 284 17.547
Total 4995.254 286
for boosting self-reliance in terms of saving. Respondents who consider boosting self-reliance as a top
priority for saving have a mean savings habit score of 18.19, while those who place boosting self-reliance
as a middle priority for saving have an average savings habit scores of 18.86. On the other hand,
respondents who consider boosting self-reliance as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean
savings habit score of 18.70. To evaluate whether the differences in the savings habit scores among the
varying levels of priorities for boosting self-reliance is significant, an analysis of variance was
performed. Table 3.6.2 shows the corresponding ANOVA table. The significance value of the ANOVA is
at 0.712, which is greater than the level of significance of 0.05. This indicates the mean savings habit
scores among the three level of priorities for boosting self-reliance are not significantly different from
each other.
Section 3.7 Relationship between Savings Habit Scores and Level of Priority for Personal Needs
Table 3.7.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Personal Needs

for Personal Needs
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 148.175 2 74.088 4.341 .014
Within Groups 4847.079 284 17.067
Total 4995.254 286
for personal needs in terms of saving. Respondents who consider personal needs as a top priority for
saving have a mean savings habit score of 18.88, while those who place personal needs as a middle
consider personal needs as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 17.16.
personal needs is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.7.2 shows the
corresponding ANOVA table. The significance value of the ANOVA is at 0.014, which is less than the
level of significance of 0.05. This indicates the mean savings habit scores among the three level of
priorities for personal needs are significantly different from each other. To determine which groups have
significantly different average savings habit scores, a post – hoc analysis was performed.
Table 3.7.3.Post – Hoc Analysis on the difference in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for
Personal Needs
Priority on Personal Needs Mean Difference Significance

Middle Priority -.271 .624
Top Priority
Last Priority 1.715* .020
Top Priority .271 .624
Middle Priority
Last Priority 1.985* .004
Top Priority -1.715* .020
Last Priority
Middle Priority -1.985* .004
Table 3.7.3 shows the LSD post – hoc analysis results for the analysis of variance performed on the
savings habit scores among varying levels of priority for personal needs. The results are summarized as
follows:
 The average savings habit score of respondents who consider personal needs as a top priority for
saving is significantly higher than those who consider personal needs as the last priority, but is
not significantly different from those who consider personal needs as a middle priority.
 The average savings habit score of respondents who consider personal needs as a middle priority
for saving is significantly higher than those who consider personal needs as the last priority.
The results show that those who prioritize personal needs have a significantly higher savings
habit compared to those who do not prioritize it.
Section 3.8 Relationship between Savings Habit Scores and Level of Priority for Short Term Goals
Table 3.8.1. Descriptive Measures on Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Short Term
Goals

for Short Term Goals
Sum of Mean
df F Sig.
Squares Square
Between Groups 97.341 2 48.670 2.822 .061
Within Groups 4897.914 284 17.246
Total 4995.254 286
for short term goals in terms of saving. Respondents who consider short term goals as a top priority for
saving have a mean savings habit score of 18.33, while those who place short term goals as a middle
priority for saving have an average savings habit score of 17.95. On the other hand, respondents who
consider short term goals as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 19.22.
short term goals is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.8.2 shows the
priorities for short term goals are not significantly different from each other.
Conclusion
Nowadays, senior high students tend to save more. The situation could be help in their
critical thinking in practicing saving. Questionnaire is distributed to the respondents to get the
feedback.
The importance of this study is to help the students to save more by letting them know their
goals. Increasing their saving method is a way to increase empowerment and improve the quality
of life. Energy, thought, and time are spent pursuing money and limiting the unnecessary waste
of money. Thus, when students save more have a positive attitudes toward money, they make
better decisions, which save resources and improve their situation. The study shows that there
are no relationships between their way of saving and the differences of the reasons why they
save hence the save according to what amount they have. Furthermore, there is a positive
relationship between their saving attitude toward their financial goals. By means of self-
discipline senior high students can reach their different goals. To improve their saving attitude
we suggest them to be more financially literate or learn more about financial literacy.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We the researcher, would like to express our sincere gratitude to everyone who helped us in
the completion of this study.
To our research promoter, Ms. Carazelli Ayson, who have attended to our concerns and
guided us through out the research process with her knowledge and expertise.
To our statistical consultant, Mr. Clarence Magsakay, who have provided us his time to
oversee the statistical process of our research.
To all of the participating students who have given us their time in answering the
questionnaires.
To the parents of the research team who have provided us with the means and support in
accomplishing this requirement.
Lastly, to the Almighty God who have given us our life and who have been our source of
strength.
Thank you.
The Researchers,
Banguiyao, Rankine
Baylon, John Paul
Bungalan, Judelein
Chog-ap, Rosaleah Ashley
Columna, Jill Kathleen
Flores, Sharmela
Francisco, Maria Fatima
References
Agresti, A. (2007). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. New Jersey: John Wiley &
Sons.
Andrew, Anthony & , K.Tharanika & Kangatharan, Tharanika. (2017). Factors Influencing On
Saving Behaviour Among University Students- With Special Reference to the Students of
Faculty Of Commerce and Management, Eastern University, Sri Lanka. International Journal of
Research. Volume 04. 861-871.
Balint, A., Horvathne, A.K. (2013). Saving Habits of Hungarian College Students. Vol 9, No 34
(2013). DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.19044/esj.2013.v9n34p%25p
Beatrice, Anak Wong (2013). Practices of savings among students. Masters thesis, Universiti
Malaysia Sarawak, (UNIMAS).
Cho, S. H. (2009). Role of saving goals in savings behavior: Regulatory focus approach
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Chua, N., Kiong, S., Villa, K., & Paguta, R. (2016). A Tobit Analysis of the Determinants and
Potentials of Savings in the Case of Payatas Households. Information Management And
Business Review, 8(3), 47-57. Retrieved
from https://ifrnd.org/journal/index.php/imbr/article/view/1331
Fisher, Patti, Gender Differences in Personal Saving Behaviors (2010). Journal of Financial
Counseling and Planning, Vol. 21, No. 1, 2010. Available at
SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2803965
Fisher, P. J., & Anong, S. T. (2012). Relationship of saving motives to saving habits. Journal of
Financial Counseling and Planning, 23(1), 63-79.
Furnham, Adrian. (1999). The Saving and Spending Habits of Young People. Journal of
Economic Psychology. 20. 677-697. 10.1016/S0167-4870(99)00030-6.
Hoos Karin (2010), “Saving Behavior in Cebu City: Contribution to the Livelihoods of Urban
Poor Households”, Master Thesis, International Development Studies
Lee, J. M., & Hanna, S. D. (2015). Savings Goals and Saving Behavior From a Perspective of
Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 26(2), 129-147.
McHugh, M. L. (2013, June). The Chi-square test of Independence. The Journal of Croatian
Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 23(2), 143-149.
Mehta, C. R., & Patel, N. R. (2012). IBM SPSS Exact Tests. Cambridge: IBM Corp
Mukda Kowhakul, 2016. "Personal Factors Affecting to the Saving Behavior of People in
Bangkok Metropolitan Region, Thailand," Proceedings of International Academic
Conferences 4106595, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
Munanda, K. (2017).Savings among the Youth in the Banking Sector: A Case Study of Standard
Chartered Bank Kenya Limited. Retrieved from
http://erepo.usiu.ac.ke/handle/11732/3207;jsessionid=508FA3CEF007E7C2717A919A36B07A
66
Mylenko, Nataliya. 2015. Enhancing financial capability and inclusion in the Philippines : a
demand-side assessment (English). Washington, D.C. : World Bank Group.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/209091467997611506/a-demand-side-assessment
Rodriguez, C.; Ansong, D.; et al. (2015). Youth Savings Patterns and Performance in Colombia,
Ghana, Kenya, and Nepal: YouthSave Research Report 2015. Center for Social Development at
Washington University in St. Louis.
Terada-Hagiwara, Akiko (2009).Explaining Filipino Households’ Declining Saving Rate.ADB

Economics Working Paper Series.Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/11540/1834
Walpole, R. e. (2011). Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists (9th ed.).
Singapore: Pearson Education South Asia.

Financial Goals and Saving Habits of Senior High Students

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

Financial Goals and Saving Habits of Senior High Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RESEARCH PAPER No.

FINANCIAL GOALS AND SAVING HABITS OF SENIOR HIGH

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT RESEARCH

We envision Saint Louis University as an excellent, missionary, and

SCHOOL OF ACCOUNTANCY, MANAGEMENT, COMPUTING AND

Judelein B. Bungalan, Rankine B. Banguiyao, John Paul P. Baylon, Rosaleah Ashley D.

Key words: Financial goals, Savings Habit, Senior High Students

percent in 1981 to a mere 15.43 percent in 2017 (The World Bank).

consider themselves "spenders" rather than "savers".

children effectively in the aspect of money management.

In economics, saving is often considered to be what is left of disposable income after

where one saves by default.

cycle motive; c) Intertemporal substitution motive; d) Improvement motive; e) Independence

motive; f) Enterprise motive; g) Bequest motive; and h) Avarice motive.

Research Design and Methodology

result of 287 students was chosen as representative for the study.

ordinal scale is the weekly allowance.

Pearson’s Chi – Square:

Fisher’s Exact Test:

Test on Column Proportions

Section 1. Demographic profile

Table 1.1. Distribution of Respondents based on Gender

Table 1.2. Distribution of Respondents based on Grade Level

11 respondents were at 118 (41.1%).

Table 1.3. Distribution of Respondents based on Senior High School Strand

Table 1.4. Distribution of Respondents based on Weekly Allowances

Table 1.5. Distribution of Respondents based on Preferred Savings Method

while only 68 (23.7%) prefer Savings Account.

as Rank 1, while only 11 (3.8%) respondents ranked it as Rank 7.

Table 1.7. Ranking of Personal Wants as a Reason for Saving

as Rank 1, while only 15 (5.2%) respondents ranked it as Rank 3.

Table 1.9. Ranking of Financial Security as a Reason for Saving

Table 1.11. Ranking of Personal Needs as a Reason for Saving

Table 1.13. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 1

saving on a regular basis”, while only 20 (7.0%) strongly disagreed.

fixed amount of money.”, while only 29 (10.1%) strongly disagreed.

Table 1.15. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 3

what is left of my allowance.”, while only 20 (7.0%) strongly disagreed.

Table 1.16. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 4

keep track of my savings.”, while only 30 (10.5%) strongly disagreed.

Table 1.17. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 5

Table 1.18. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 6

when I have a goal.”, while only 29 (10.1%) strongly disagreed.

Table 1.20. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 8

Table 1.21. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 9

Table 1.22. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 10

Table 1.23. Distribution of Respondents based on Senior High School Track

while only 32 (11.1%) were under Sports Track.

Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Value df Exact Significance

respondents whose preferred savings method is through the peso challenge.

Grade Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Value df Exact Significance

method between grade 11 and grade 12 respondents.

Weekly Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Allowance Method Bank Account Challenge

Php 1000 % within .7% 5.9% 4.1%

Value df Exact Significance

Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Design % within 13.2% 11.8% 13.3%

Value df Exact Significance

method between respondents under different Senior High School tracks.