1

SACRED HEART COLLEGE

LUCENA CITY
COLLEGE OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
MAJOR IN FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

“DIFFERENT FACTORS AFFECTING THE PERSONALITY TYPES OF

COMPUTER SCIENCE STUDENTS OF SACRED HEART COLLEGE :
DECISION MAKING ON GOOD INVESTMENTS.”

In partial fulfillment of
FM301 Financial Management
Under the professorship of
Marilyn D. Iglesias

By

Kris Rajeev 3FMA

Jerald Wariza 3FMA

SY:2017-2018
 2

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

The study of personality has been approached by theorists in a variety of ways.

Some have emphasized the dual influence of hereditary and early childhood experiences

on personality development; others have stressed broader social and environmental

influences and the fact that personality develops over time. Personality has been defined

as those inner psychological characteristics that both determine and reflect how a person

response to his or her environment (Schiffma et al. 1997).The emphasis in this definition

is on inner characteristics, those specific qualifies, attributes, traits, factors, and mannerism

that distinguish one individual from another. According to Schiffman et al. (1997) the

deeply ingrained characteristic that we call personality are likely to influence the

individual’s product choices. Furthermore, as explored by Allport (1961) personality is a

vibrant association in the inner self of the human beings of psychophysical structure that

make the person’s trait prototype of actions, judgment and mind-set.

On the other hand, Reilly (1979) defined investment as “the current commitment

of funds for a period of time in order the derive a future flow of funds for a period of time

in order to derive a future flow of funds that will compensate the investing unit for the time

the funds are committed, for the expected rate of inflation and also for the uncertainty

involved in the future flow of funds. Moreover, investment is seen as the purchase by an

individual or institution of a financial asset that produce a yield that is proportional to the

risk assumed over some future investment period.

 3

According to Chao et al (2012) propose that the people who belong to the investors’

categories, their psychological biases are presented in the diverse personality types.

In connection with this, Pompian (2006) first time explored the three dimensions

of personality types. These are idealist versus pragmatist, framer versus integrator and

reflector versus realist. Individual who fit into the idealists can be the theme to the

subsequent biases: overconfidence, optimism, availability, illusion of control,

confirmation, recency and representativeness. On the other hand, pragmatists being an

investor are classically not prone to the above mentioned biases. While in second

dimension, framers may be subject to these biases: anchoring, conservatism, mental

accounting, framing and ambiguity. Integrators don’t have aforesaid biases of framers. In

third dimension, reflectors prone to the following biases: cognitive dissonance, loss

aversion, endowment, self-control, regret, status quo and hindsight but realists do not prone

to biases of reflectors. Pragmatist, integrator and realist thinking are opposite to the idealist,

framer and reflector. Filbeck et al. (2005) acknowledge that the significant relation of

personality types and behavioral characteristic of investment is investigated by scholars.

Investment behavior focuses on financials assets diversification, know-how tendency,

outline of participation in investing activities, pervious and future footstep for scheduling

of investments, fondness of investment, hazard acceptance point, resources possession,

management of monetary responsibilities, threat taking intensity and investment liking.

With this, stimulate by the researchers to find out the different factors affecting the

personality types of Computer Science students of Sacred Heart College: Decision making

on good investments, the researchers decided to conduct a study of the said factors.

Statement of the Problem

 4

The study is entitled “Different factors affecting the personality types of Com-Sci

students of Sacred Heart College : Decision making on good investments.”

To help the researchers in gathering correct, accurate and relevant data, the

researchers formulated three sub-problems:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents according to :

1.1 Age

1.2 Sex

1.3 Year Level

2. What are the different personality types in terms of investing?

3. Is there a significant difference on the factors affecting the personality

types of the respondents when grouped according to their demographic

profile?

Hypothesis

H1: There is no significant difference on the factors influencing the consumer

behavior of the respondents when grouped according to their demographic profile.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

 5

This study is conducted to the Computer Science Students of Sacred Heart College.

The researchers also considered the demographic profile including their age , sex and year

level with a total of thirty (30) respondents. The respondents of this study were the third

and fourth year computer science students of Sacred Heart College (S.Y 2017-2018).

Significance of the Study

The study aims to know the different factors affecting the personality types of

Computer Science of Sacred Heart College : Decision making on good investments .

Through the results and generalization of this study, it benefited the Computer Science

students. Particularly, this study is beneficial to the respondents, financial management

students, business administration professors, the present researchers, and the future

researchers.

Definition of Terms

For clearer understanding of the terms used in this study, below are their meanings:

Dissonance. inconsistency between the beliefs one holds or between one's actions and

one's beliefs.

Loss Aversion. refers to people's tendency to prefer avoiding losses.

Stimulate. encourage interest or activity.

CHAPTER II

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

 6

This chapter provides a comprehensive presentation, analysis and interpretation of data

gathered from the respondents through the questionnaires. The answers were tallied,

analyzed and interpreted.

PART 1

Demographic Profile

21-23 AGE 24 and above

10%
0%
15 - 17
0%

15 - 17
18-20
21-23
24 and above

18-20
90%

FIGURE 1.1

Profile of the respondents as to age

The graphic above shows the distribution of age of the respondents. It can

be derived that majority of the respondents has the age of eighteen to twenty (18 – 20) with

the frequency of 27 which is equivalent to 90% of the total respondents. While the
 7

respondents with the age of twenty-one to twenty-three (21 – 23) has the frequency of 3

which is equivalent to 10% of the total respondents. And there are no respondents with the

age of 15 to 17 and 24 and above.

SEX

50% 50%

Male Female

FIGURE 1.2

Profile of respondents as to sex

From the graph presented above, it can be derived that the respondents are equal in

terms of sex. Both with the frequency of 15 which is equivalent to 50% each.
 8

YEAR LEVEL
1st Year 2nd Year 3rd Year 4th Year
2
7%

28
93%

FIGURE 1.3
Profile of respondents as to year level

From the graph presented above, it can be derived that majority of the respondents

are the third year with a frequency of 28 which is equivalent to 93% of the total

respondents. While the remaining 7% are the fourth year with the frequency of 2. And

there are no 1st year and 2nd Year respondents.

 9

PART 2

DIFFERENT INVESTOR PERSONALITY TYPES

Personality
Definition 4 3 2 1
Type Total
Idealist vs. Pragmatist
-a person who is guided more by
investment principles rather than
1. Idealist 5 7 17 1 30
by practically
-a visionary or impractical person
-a person who is guided more by
practical considerations rather than
2. Pragmatist by principles 4 19 7 0 30
-a realistic or practical person

Framers vs. Integrators

-a person that creates concepts,
3. Framers plan or system in investing 8 14 8 0 30
-a person that sticks to his/her plan
-a person that has many concepts or
plan
4. Integrators -a person that adjusts through 2 12 16 0 30
different concept or plan depending
on the situation
Reflectors vs. Realist
-a person that thinks about the best
decision in a situation because
they’re scared of having mistakes
5. Reflectors 2 19 7 2 30
-a person that is very cautious in
decision making and doesn’t want
regrets
-a person that accepts situations as
it is and prepared to deal with it
6. Realist 12 11 6 1 30
-a person that accepts only what is
possible

Table 1
 10

PART 3

Investor personality types of respondents

INVESTOR PERSONALITY TYPES

IFT, 3, 10%
PNR, 5, 17%

PNT, 1, 3%

IFR, 7, 23%

PFR, 7, 23%
INT, 1, 3%

PFT, 2, 7%
INR, 4, 14%

FIGURE 2
Distribution according to different investment personality types

Figure 2 displays the distribution of different investor’s personality type. Most

respondents are classified to IFR and PFR both with seven respondents equivalent to 23%

each. 18% of respondents are classified to PNR with the frequency of 5. While the 13% of

the respondents are classified to INR with the frequency of 4. 10% of the respondents are

classified to IFT with the frequency of 3. While 7% of the respondents are classified to

PFT with the frequency of 2. And the remaining 6% of the respondents are classified to

INT and PNT with the frequency of one each.

 11

PART 4
Significant difference on the investor personality type of the respondents when they
are grouped according to their demographic profile.

TABLE 2
F- Test of Age

Group F Value At 0.05

Being Level of
Compared df Mean Computed Critical Decision Significance

15-17 Dfb=1 - - - - -

Dfw=28 Not
18-20 X2=2.50 0.530 4.20 Accepted
Significant

Dft=29 Not
21-23 X3=2.62 0.530 4.20 Accepted
Significant

24 and
- - - - -
above

Table 2 presents the F-test results on finding significant difference on the investor

personality type when they are grouped according to their age.

The researchers accepted the null hypothesis with the absolute computed value of

0.530 and critical value of 4.20. There is no significant difference on the investor

personality type when they are grouped according to their age. This finding is significant

level at 0.05 levels. There is no significant because the respondent’s different age bracket

does not affect their personality of being idealist or pragmatist, framer and integrator, and

being reflector or realist.

 12

TABLE 3
T- Test Between Sexes

Group T Value At 0.05

Being Level of
Df Mean Computed Critical Decision
Compared Significance

Male (x) 15 X=2.54 0.065 2.048 Accept Not

Significant

Female (y) 15 Y=2.48 0.065 2.048 Accept Not

Significant

Table 3 presents the T-test results on finding significant difference in the investor

personality type when they are grouped according to their sex.

The researchers accepted the null hypothesis with the absolute computed value of

0.065 and a critical value of 2.048. There is no significant difference on the investor

personality type when they are grouped according to their sex. This finding is significant

level at 0.05 levels.

 13

TABLE 4
T- Test Between Year Level

Group T Value At 0.05

Being Level of
Df Mean Computed Critical Decision
Compared Significance

3rd (x) 28 X=2.5 0.064 2.048 Accept Not

Significant

4th (y) 2 Y=2.64 0.064 2.048 Accept Not

Significant

Table 3 presents the T-test results on finding significant difference in the investor

personality type when they are grouped according to their year level.

The researchers accepted the null hypothesis with the absolute computed value of

0.064 and a critical value of 2.048. There is no significant difference on the investor

personality type when they are grouped according to their year level. This finding is

significant level at 0.05 levels.

 14

Appendices
 15

Figure 3.1
Computation of Age in SSB

Figure 3.2
Computation of Sex in SSB
 16

Figure 3.3
Computation of Year level in SSB

Figure 3.4
OVERALL WAM
 17

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

This part presents a comprehensive summary of findings and conclusion derived from the

tests and findings.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Based on the analysis of the data presented, the following finding were drawn,

1. Based on demographic profile of the respondents:

a. Regarding the demographic profile of the respondents according to age of the

Computer Science students with 27 respondents or 90% were 18 to 20. While

students with 3 respondents or 10% were 21-23.

b. The percentage distribution of the respondents according to sex. Were both sexes

has equal number of respondents with 15 each or 50%.

c. Most of the respondents belonged to the 3rd year students having 28 respondents

(93%) and 3rd year students having 2 respondents (7%).

2. The personality types of the selected Computer Science students of Sacred Heart

College Lucena City, most of the respondents displays visionary grasp of their own

skills that are guided by principles, has the attitude of sticking on only one concept,

and have acceptance of what is possible.

3. In all computation of demographic profile of respondents in SSB, the findings are all

accepted or not significant.

 18

CONCLUSION

In the light of the findings of the study, the researcher concludes that majority of

the respondents are classified to idealist, framer, realist which is considered need for

improvement.

The researchers also concluded that majority of Computer Science students in

Sacred Heart College don’t quite has the skill for effective investment, the reason of they

are bound to technology not in investment.

 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment