Financial Goals and Saving Habits of Senior High Students

FINANCIAL GOALS AND
SAVING HABITS OF
SENIOR HIGH STUDENTS
RANKINE B. BANGUIYAO, JOHN PAUL P. BAYLON, JUDELEIN B. BUNGALAN, ROSALEAH ASHLEY D. CHOG-AP, JILL
KATHLEEN S. COLUMNA, SHARMELA B. FLORES, MARIA FATIMA C. FRANCISCO, 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 researchers 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 a deemed link between
savings and economic growth.
SOURCE: BSP
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, save 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 save a merely 10
percent or less of their income. This kind of saving habit
and other factors lead 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 is 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 has been encouraging the public, specially the youth who occupies bulk of the
country’s population, to engage more in the saving and investment activity.
However, it has been
reported that students,
Youth savings can mostly in college, have In a 2006 study of the
promote asset-building, critical spending habits NDSU Extension Service,
instill good financial and are likely to face fifty-six (56) percent of
habits, and improve a bankruptcy at a young age teenagers consider
country’s overall gross if they do not manage themselves "spenders"
savings rate. their personal finances, rather than "savers".
specially their savings
(Syahrom et al, 2017).
• 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 gender, grade level, course and
weekly allowance on a student’s 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 can better
address the differences of the saving habits 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 and 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
Saving habits were defined as
frequently practiced behaviors, done without
In economics, saving is often
a particular sense of awareness, with the goal
considered to be what is left of disposable
of freeing up funds for saving or debt
income after consumption is deducted (Lunt
reduction. There are three (3) categories of
& Livingstone, 1991), but to the average
saving habits proposed by Katona (1975): a)
person, saving refers to money set aside and
Contractual saving where one makes routine
other assets to protect one from future
installment payments for an asset, which is
encumbrance or simply for purchasing goods
forced or obligatory; b) Discretionary saving,
and services (Katona, 1975; Lunt &
where one deliberately saves; and c) Residual
Livingstone, 1991).
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
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.
01 02
For the first objective of the study, The latter objective involves the
the independent variables are the reasons for saving as the
gender, course and grade level independent variable and the
while the dependent variable is saving habits of the student as
the saving method of a student. dependent variable.
RESULTS 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 r is the number of rows while c 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
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
Table 1.6 shows that most respondents Total 287

at 107 (37.3%) ranked 100.0
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
Table 1.8 shows that majority of the respondents

Total at 70 (24.4%)
287ranked College
100.0 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 Reason for Saving at Rank 2, while only 7 (2.4%)
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 Reason for Saving at Rank 3, while only 9 (3.1%)
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
Table 1.21 shows that most of the respondents at 140 (48.8%) strongly agreed to the statement “I 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
Table 1.22 shows that most of the respondents at 110 (38.3%) strongly agreed to the statement “I 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 Level Saving Method Coin / Piggy Bank Savings Account Peso 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 Allowance Saving Method Coin / Piggy Bank Savings Account Peso Challenge
Below Count 93a 35a 44a
Php 500 % within 64.6% 51.5% 60.3%
Count 50a 29a 26a

Php 500 - Php 1000
% within 34.7% 42.6% 35.6%
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
SHS Track Saving Method Coin / Piggy Bank Savings Account Peso Challenge
Count 69a 32a 34a

Academic
% within 47.9% 47.1% 45.3%
Count 19a 8a 10a

Arts and Design
% within 13.2% 11.8% 13.3%
Count 17a 8a 7a
Sports
% within 11.8% 11.8% 9.3%
Count 39a 20a 24a

Technical Vocational
% within 27.1% 29.4% 32.0%
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 3.1 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 Ri is the numerical response of the respondent for item I . It is worth noting that items 3 and 6 reflect
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 Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
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

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
Between Groups 31.394 2 15.697 .898 .409
Within Groups 4963.861 284 17.478
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.4.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority 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
priority for saving have an average savings habit scores of 18.80. On the other hand, respondents who consider college education as one of the last priorities in
saving have a mean savings habit score of 18.15. To evaluate whether the differences in the savings habit scores among the varying levels of priorities for
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

Table 3.5.2. ANOVA Table for Testing Differences in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Financial Security
Between Groups 42.264 2 21.132 1.212 .299
Within Groups 4952.990 284 17.440
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.5.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority 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 priority for saving have an average savings habit scores of 18.76. On the other hand, respondents who consider financial
security as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit score of 17.79. To evaluate whether the differences in the savings habit
scores among the varying levels of priorities for financial security is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.5.2 shows the
corresponding ANOVA table. The significance value of the ANOVA is at 0.299, 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 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
Table 3.6.2. ANOVA Table for Testing Differences in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Boosting Self – Reliance
Between Groups 11.929 2 5.965 .340 .712
Within Groups 4983.325 284 17.547
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.6.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority 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
Table 3.7.2. ANOVA Table for Testing Differences in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Personal Needs

Between Groups 148.175 2 74.088 4.341 .014
Within Groups 4847.079 284 17.067
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.7.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority 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 priority for saving have an average savings habit scores of 19.15.
On the other hand, respondents who consider personal needs as one of the last priorities in saving have a mean savings habit
score of 17.16. To evaluate whether the differences in the savings habit scores among the varying levels of priorities for
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
Table 3.8.2. ANOVA Table for Testing Differences in Savings Habit Scores based on Level of Priority for Short Term Goals
Between Groups 97.341 2 48.670 2.822 .061
Within Groups 4897.914 284 17.246
Total 4995.254 286
Table 3.8.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the respondents based on the level of priority 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. To evaluate whether the differences in the savings habit scores among
the varying levels of priorities for short term goals is significant, an analysis of variance was performed. Table 3.8.2 shows the corresponding
ANOVA table. The significance value of the ANOVA is at 0.061, 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 short term goals are not significantly different from each other.
CONCLUSION
Nowadays, senior high students tend to save more.
This can even be more improved through 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 and have
a positive attitude towards 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 and 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.
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=508FA3CEF007E7C2717A919A36B07A66
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

FINANCIAL GOALS AND

Key words: Financial goals, Savings Habit, Senior High

Pearson’s Chi – Square:

Fisher’s Exact Test:

Section 1. Demographic profile

Male 116 40.4

Female 171 59.6

Total 287 100.0

Grade 11 118 41.1

Table 1.3. Distribution of Respondents based on Senior High School

Below Php 500 172 60.4

Table 1.6 shows that most respondents Total 287

Table 1.8 shows that majority of the respondents

Total 287 100.0

Table 1.19. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 7

Table 1.21. Responses for Savings Habit – Item 9

Total 287 100.0

Saving Coin / Piggy Savings Peso

Value df Exact Significance

Value df Exact Significance

Below Count 93a 35a 44a

Php 500 % within 64.6% 51.5% 60.3%

Count 50a 29a 26a

Php 1000 % within .7% 5.9% 4.1%

Value df Exact Significance

Pearson Chi-Square 7.165a 4 .124

Likelihood Ratio 7.567 4 .137

Fisher's Exact Test 7.508 .091

Count 69a 32a 34a

Count 19a 8a 10a

Count 39a 20a 24a

Value df Exact Significance

Pearson Chi-Square .879a 6 .990

Likelihood Ratio .888 6 .990

Fisher’s Exact Test .935 .991

• Section 3.1 Classification of Respondents and Savings Habit Score

Range Level of Priority

Rank 1 – 2 Top Priority

Rank 3 – 5 Middle Priority

Rank 6 – 7 Last Priority

Frequency Mean Std. Deviation

Table 3.2.1 shows the mean savings habit scores of the

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Priority on Personal Wants Mean Difference Significance

Middle Priority -.013 .985

Top Priority .013 .985

Top Priority 1.406* .030

Frequency Mean Std. Deviation

Top Priority 87 19.05 4.582

Middle Priority 134 18.80 4.251

Last Priority 66 18.15 3.407

Between Groups 31.394 2 15.697 .898 .409

Within Groups 4963.861 284 17.478

Total 4995.254 286

Frequency Mean Std. Deviation

Top Priority 110 19.01 3.943

Middle Priority 139 18.76 3.985

Last Priority 38 17.79 5.368

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 42.264 2 21.132 1.212 .299

Within Groups 4952.990 284 17.440

Total 4995.254 286