SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC SCIENCES

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DISSERTATION:

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND PEOPLE’S

CHOICE OF MOBILE DEVICES: A CASE OF MUBAS STUDENTS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF COMMERCE IN PARTIAL

FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE BACHELORS’ DEGREE IN
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION (GENERIC)

SUBMITTED BY: IMMACULATE PAWIRA BBA/19/SS/060

SUPERVISOR: MISS S. MPOSA

3rd NOVEMBER 2023

Table of Contents

CHAPTER ONE...................................................................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................................

1.1 BACKGROUND.........................................................................................................................................

1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT.........................................................................................................................

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY................................................................................................................

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................................

1.5 JUSTIFICATION/SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY..............................................................................

CHAPTER TWO..................................................................................................................................................

LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................................................................

INTRODUCTION/CHAPTER OVERVIEW...................................................................................................

CLARIFICATION OF KEY CONCEPTS........................................................................................................

UNDERSTANDING SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS......................................................................................

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR............................................................................................................................

THE CONSUMER BUYING PROCESS:........................................................................................................

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOUR................................................

Theoretical Review............................................................................................................................................

THE CONSUMER CHOICE THEORY...........................................................................................................

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION THEORY....................................................................................................

STATUS CONSUMPTION THEORY.............................................................................................................

CHAPTER 3.........................................................................................................................................................

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................

CHAPTER 4.........................................................................................................................................................

Descriptive analysis...........................................................................................................................................

Demographic information.................................................................................................................................

Findings according to the objective of the study...............................................................................................

CHAPTER 5.........................................................................................................................................................
 RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................................................................

References.............................................................................................................................................................

APPENDICES......................................................................................................................................................

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1................................................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 2................................................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 3................................................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 4................................................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 5................................................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 6................................................................................................................................................................
FIGURE 7................................................................................................................................................................

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 2.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 3.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 4.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 5.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 6.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 7.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 8.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 9.................................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 10...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 11...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 12...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 13...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 14...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 15...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 16...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 17...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 18...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 19...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 20...............................................................................................................................................................
TABLE 21...............................................................................................................................................................
 DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this research project is my own work and has not been submitted to any
other university or college for an award.

Signature: Date:

Name: IMMACULATE PAWIRA

Reg.no: BBA/19/SS/060

SUPERVISORS CONFIRMATION

I do hereby confirm that I have examined the dissertation of Immaculate Pawira as fulfilling
part of the requirements for the award of the degree of bachelor in Business administration
and that the thesis review recommended has been sufficiently addressed.

MISS SELINA MPOSA (supervisor)

Date:

Sign:

MRS. C. SAMBAKUSI (Head of Department)

Day:

Sign:
 DEDICATION

This work is dedicated to my family members. My dad, Mr Evance Pawira, my mom Mrs
Bibiana Mfipa Pawira, my brother Mr Evance Junior Pawira, my sister, Miss Vanessa
Pawira, and my nephew Emmett Pawira. A special thanks to my aunt Miss Jenniffer.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to thank God Almighty for the source of all knowledge and
wisdom, his grace and Mercy towards me as I was working on the completion of my thesis. I
also thank my supervisor Miss Selina Mposa who was always available and present to help
me come up with a good thesis. Let me also thank Mr Levison Chiotcha for the support as I
was doing this research. I also thank Mr. Kasoka for his useful insight on statistics and many
more parts I had to enquire about. Let me also acknowledge my circle of friends who
provided me with psychological support. Additionally, I would like to give special thanks to
my friend and classmate Doreen Nyoni for her motivation and encouragement as I was doing
my research.

ABSTRACT

This study was done to find out the relationship between socioeconomic status and people's
choice of mobile devices: The case of Mubas students. The research objectives included,
identifying students from high socio-economic status and their choice of mobile device
brand, identifying students with low socioeconomic status and their choice of mobile device
brand, identifying students with loans and parents’ upkeep and their choice of mobile devices
and identifying students with loan benefit and business and their choice of mobile devices.
The population sample size was 100 and 100 respondents and a close-ended questionnaire
was distributed online among the students, to find out or measure the relationship between
socioeconomic status and one's choice of mobile devices.
 CHAPTER ONE

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Socioeconomic status (SES) is a person or group's stance within a hierarchical social system
(Lantos 2015). It represents an individual’s social, physical, and cultural surroundings
(Pechey and Monsivais 2016). Scholars in marketing oftentimes implement socioeconomic
status using three indicators: income, education, and occupation (Aggarwal et al. 2005; El-
Gilany et al. 2012; González et al. 2016). Curl et al. (2013) state that higher income and
education levels correlate with healthy consumption. The coming of contemporary electronic
items has caught the interest of people worldwide. People have become so reliant on these
mobile devices that they cannot envision their future growth without them. Technology
gadget addiction is being caused by people's dependence on electronic goods. According to
research, teenagers are the population segments most susceptible to developing a
technological addiction. Modern life is difficult to imagine without mobile devices, such as
mobile phones, laptops, or tablets This research aimed to study the relationship between
socioeconomic status and the mobile device purchase.

Without mobile devices, such as mobile phones, laptops, or tablets, modern life is difficult to
imagine. People now find it impossible to survive a day without their mobile devices because
they have grown so accustomed to them. The most widely used mobile devices and in use
today are described in the section after this.

Firstly, a cell phone's function is to make and receive calls over a radio link while the user is
travelling through a large geographic area. Other features offered by mobile phones include
text messaging, audio playback, internet access, infrared, Bluetooth, business applications, e-
mail, gaming, and photography, among others. It was first presented in 1973. The first
commercially available mobile phone debuted in 1983(Heeks, 2008). A laptop or computer is
a machine that may be designed to perform a limited number of mathematical and logical
functions. A computer can answer more than one type of problem at once because the order
of operations may be easily modified. A laptop is portable because of its tiny size and battery
backup for the energy it needs to operate. British Designer Bill Maggridge created the first
laptop in 1979.
Samson (2010) found from his research that when students utilize laptops and other
electronic devices, the instructor's recommendations are linked to the learning objectives of
the course. The use of these digital gadgets can have a favourable effect on the learning and
engagement of young kids. In their study, Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (2009) concluded that
those who engage in a lot of technical activities on digital devices are better at handling
cognitive tasks. The effective usage of these devices may have beneficial effects on cognitive
processing and also help users become multitasking experts.

The introduction of online learning has also led to the need for university students to possess
mobile devices. Due to the demand for Higher education institutes capability, the inadequacy
of faculty teaching staff, and the need to increase access to higher education, e-learning has
become more popular in Malawi (Chawinga & Zozie, 2016; Kayange, 2019; Maere, 2011).
Also, due to the closure of educational institutions as a result of COVID-19, Higher education
institutions have become more interested in participating in e-learning. Malawi has registered
and received accreditation from the National Council for Higher Education (NCHE) for six
state universities and eighteen private universities (NCHE, 2021). A third of them are
currently using electronic learning methods including Malawi University of Science and
Technology (MUST), Catholic University of Malawi (CU), Malawi Assemblies of God
University (MAGU) and Blantyre International University (BIU).

Mesay Sata (2013) researched the elements influencing consumers' decisions to purchase
mobile devices in Hawassa town and concluded that the consumer values price, followed by
mobile phone qualities, as the most crucial aspect of all. This element also served as a
motivating factor in their decision to get a mobile phone.

The student’s attitude towards the purchase will depend on their social background where if
they are exposed enough because of their socioeconomic status, then they are likely to
purchase the required technological gadgets. Numerous studies have revealed that students
frequently lack access to the internet, computer skills, and e-learning (Al-Araibi et al., 2019;
Al-Azawei et al., 2016; Aung & Khaing, 2016; Karaman et al., 2014; Kenan et al., 2014;
Kihoza et al., 2015; Touray et al., 2013). This study focused on polytechnic students because
they were closer to the researcher’s area of residence as such it was easier to collect data
while saving time and money, and most importantly, the polytechnic has a large population of
students coming from different socioeconomic statuses and also using different types of
gadgets. As such, there was a lot of possible respondents to choose from.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Research has shown that individuals from high socioeconomic status own expensive mobile
device brands. This is because their earnings as well as occupation allow them to do so. The
population consisting of people from higher socio-economic status also includes students
from the universities. These expensive brands are of high quality and assist the students in
their learning process greatly. This means it is better to own such brands at the university
where the use of mobile devices is an everyday activity when submitting assignments,
searching for information, studying and many more. The brands that are common among the
rich include iPhone, MacBooks, Hp laptops, Samsung phones etc.

However, a study by Goldrick-Rab; (McKenzie, 2018) has shown that some students from a
lower socioeconomic status also own expensive items by simply buying one mobile device at
a more expensive price rather than having both items at once. This research therefore aimed
to find out if there is a relationship between socioeconomic status and a student’s choice of
mobile device. Investigating this relationship will help policymakers help students who fail to
have good mobile devices be helped if the restricting factor is their socioeconomic status or
some other factor.

1.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.3.1 MAIN OBJECTIVE

The overall objective was to explain the relationship between university students’
socioeconomic status and their choice of mobile devices and to identify how to cover any
socioeconomic gap.

1.3.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVE

I. To identify students from high socio-economic status and their choice of mobile device
brand.

ii. To identify students with low socioeconomic status and their choice of mobile devices
brand.

iii. To identify students with loans and parents’ upkeep and their choice of mobile devices.

iv. To identify students with loan benefit and business and their choice of mobile devices.

1.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. There is no relationship between having a high socioeconomic status and the choice of
mobile devices.

2. There is no relationship between having a low socioeconomic status and the choice of
mobile device.

3. There is a relationship between having upkeep plus loans allowance and choice of mobile
device

4. There is no relationship between having loan benefit plus a business and a student’s choice
of mobile device

1.5 JUSTIFICATION/SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

According to an analysis by Smith and Johnson (2018), socioeconomic status significantly

affects technology adoption, with individuals from higher socioeconomic status owning new
and expensive technologies. In addition, Chen and Zand (2019) found that people from
higher socioeconomic status are more likely to own smartphones in developing countries
which suggested a link between socioeconomic factors and a person’s preference in
technology. These studies show that socioeconomic status indeed affects a person’s choice of
technology. However, in some circumstances people from a low socioeconomic status also
own expensive brands since the purchasing choices of individuals may vary. The access to
credit and financing options may allow people from low socioeconomic status to acquire
expensive technology. This is because even if the price of the product is high, the people may
choose to spread the payment overtime, making the purchase more affordable in the short
term. Another reason may be prioritizing technology over other expenses. Some individuals
with low socioeconomic status may prioritize owning expensive technology despite having
financial constraints. They may make sacrifices in other areas of their lives in order to afford
the latest technology. This is because they see it as a valuable tool for communication, job
opportunities, or staying connected with everyone. In addition, some individuals may choose
expensive brands as a means of attaining social status in the society and showing off their
aspirations. They may perceive possessing expensive technology as a symbol of success or
wealth. This is known as positional goods theory. (Veblen, 1889).

The above information shows that technology choice can be affected by an individual’s
socioeconomic status including other factors despite a person’s socioeconomic status
The socioeconomic status of many people in most societies appears to be the driving force
behind technological choices. Nevertheless, sometimes ambition surpasses economic status to
such an extent that others that are of low socioeconomic status would want to sacrifice so
much in their life in order to acquire technological advancement for the realisation of their
ego so that they keep abreast with technological advancement. Notwithstanding, other
advanced societies make it easy for people to acquire technologies using credit facilities so
that the playing field is levelled. This research will therefore aim at finding out whether
socioeconomic status is the only factor that affects the choice of mobile devices or if there are
other factors that can affect a person’s choice of mobile device despite a person’s choice of
mobile devices.
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

INTRODUCTION/CHAPTER OVERVIEW

This chapter explored the literature and theory on the relationship between socioeconomic
status and consumer choice of mobile devices. This chapter also included summaries, the
conceptual framework for the investigation, which demonstrated the relationship between
independent and dependent variables, and the theoretical and empirical literature in the
various fields covered to support the research study. There are also implications of
socioeconomic status on gadget purchasing.

CLARIFICATION OF KEY CONCEPTS

UNDERSTANDING SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

In comparison with others, a person's or family’s socio-economic status is a combination of

their financial and social standing. Income, education, and occupation are used to gauge this
status. Additionally, socioeconomic standing has been utilized to gauge the standing of
individuals, families, and communities. A person can be categorised into one of three tiers.
Low, moderate, and high are a few examples. The distribution of resources across families,
communities, and the differences in systemic justice between the three groups are becoming
major research topics as a result of associations and connections made by academics
(libralies, 2022).

Due to low household incomes, seasonal production patterns that depend on rainfall, and
limited ownership of productive assets, and low household incomes, many households in
Malawi are susceptible to falling into poverty. Using data from 2013/2014, the human
development report of 2016 estimated that 56.1% of Malawi's population was
multidimensionally poor. Only 27.2% of people were barely above the multidimensional
poverty line. The multidimensional poverty index reveals various overlapping deprived
conditions that families experience in terms of living conditions, health, and education (II,
2018). This shows equality between high socioeconomic status and low socioeconomic
status. The high population growth also plays a role in the poverty levels in Malawi.

CONSUMER BEHAVIOUR
Consumer behaviour refers to how customers choose their demands, preferences, and wishes
and the mode they use to buy, put to use, and get rid of products (Nawal, 2023). Depending
on how involved a consumer is in purchasing, there are four different forms of consumer
behaviour. There are four types of purchasing behaviours: complex, dissonance-reduced,
habitual, and variety-seeking. When purchasing an expensive item, complex buying occurs.
For instance, when purchasing a car, consumers will read reviews, compare prices, and test
drive multiple vehicles before choosing one. This behaviour is triggered by high costs,
infrequent transactions, perceived risk, and high levels of brand differences. Cars, houses,
and mobile devices are all examples of products that fall under this category. This study will
involve the purchasing of mobile devices which is also an example of complex buying.
Dissonance-reduced buyers are those unwilling to make compromises because they are
certain of what they want, and are likely to be an expert on the product and likely did
research on the product before purchase and a decision on buying is made after comparing
different brands of the product. Habitual buyers purchase a product out of habit or routine for
example someone who always purchases Coca-Cola is a habitual buyer and lastly, variety-
seeking buyers purchase an item based on their moods or occasion.

THE CONSUMER BUYING PROCESS:

1. Problem recognition: The consumer becomes aware of a need or problem that can be
solved by purchasing a product or service. The consumer is likely to conduct research
to gather information about potential solutions to the problem.

2. Evaluation of alternatives: The consumer will weigh different alternatives available

to them and select the item that best fits their needs and preferences.

3. Purchase decision: The decision to purchase a particular item may be influenced by

factors such as brand reputation, price, features and availability
 4. Post-purchase behaviour: consumer evaluates their decision and determines whether
they are satisfied with their purchase. There can also be reviews or ratings online to
share their experiences with others.

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND CONSUMER BUYING BEHAVIOUR

According to research, socioeconomic position has a significant role in influencing consumer

behaviour. People from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds typically have distinct views,
judgments, and consumption-related behaviours. For instance, while acquiring purchases,
low-income people might put more focus on price and value, whereas high-income people
might favour quality and prestige (Moschis, 2012).

Additionally, people from different backgrounds may have different consuming habits. For
instance, research has shown that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are more
likely to buy on impulse, while people from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are more
likely to buy on a plan (Kwak, 2019).

In general, marketers and policymakers who want to effectively target and impact various
consumer goods for example mobile status being studied in this research must grasp the
relationship between socioeconomic position and customer behaviours.

Theoretical Review

THE CONSUMER CHOICE THEORY

Consumer theory studies how people spend their money based on their individual preferences
and budget constraints (Liberto, 2023). The way people spend their money can be predicted,
according to economists. This is known as the "consumer theory," and much depends on it
since consumer behaviour affects business earnings, which in turn affects the health of the
entire economy. Consumer choice theory is a hypothesis about why people buy things. A
person chooses to buy things that give them great satisfaction while keeping within his or her
budget (team, n.d.).

DIFFUSION OF INNOVATION THEORY

The adoption of new innovations has been studied for more than 30 years, and one of the
most well-known adoption models is described by Rogers in his book, Diffusion of
Innovations (Sherry & Gibson, 2002). According to Medlin and Parisot (1995), Rogers'
diffusion of innovations theory is the most appropriate for examining how technology is
adopted in higher

education and educational settings. As a result of the fact that a lot of diffusion research
incorporates technological innovations, Rogers (2003) frequently used the terms
"technology" and "innovation" interchangeably.

The rate at which customers will accept new goods or services is explained by the diffusion
of innovation theory. As a result, the theory aids in the understanding of trends by marketers
and aids businesses in determining if a new product will succeed or fail. Businesses can
forecast which sorts of consumers would buy their product or service using the diffusion of
innovation theory, and then develop efficient marketing tactics to increase acceptability
across each category (Team, 2022) . As a result, those with higher socioeconomic status
might be the first to adopt new technology since they have more resources and are more
likely to be exposed to knowledge about it through their social networks. In the diffusion of
innovation theory, we have five adopter categories; innovators, early adopters, early majority,
late majority and laggards.

Figure 1

Rogers provides the distribution of the five adopter categories as follows: innovators
represent the first 2.5% of the group to adopt innovation, followed by 13.5% as early
adopters, 34% as early majorities, 34% as late majorities, and finally, 16% as laggards. Note
that the size of the laggard’s category is much larger than that of theinnovator’scategory on
the opposite end of the spectrum, this shows that a lot of people in the economy adopt
technology at a later time not as soon as an item is produced.

STATUS CONSUMPTION THEORY

Regardless of the consumer's actual wealth or social position, status consumption refers to the
consumer's behaviour of seeking to purchase products and services for the status they convey.
It frequently entails costly products and services, which consumers use for special occasions
and events rather than on a regular basis. Status consumption challenges the idea of the
rational consumer, who only makes purchases based on economic considerations, according
to many studies. There is no rational justification for the excessive prices that customers pay
for these commodities given that the consumption of goods and services for status objectives
is intrinsically driven by a need to obtain superior status in society.

For instance, the premium charged for Swatch watches and Calvin Klein clothing does not
even remotely justify the economic value of such products. The apparent social prestige that
they confer exists only in the eyes of the customer.

Another characteristic of status consumption is that it adheres to the "trickle down" idea,
whereby those with higher income levels purchase goods and services that confirm their
social status and that are aspirational for those with lower income levels. It's vital to
remember that those with lower income levels aspire to have the status of those with higher
income levels. As a result, each class tries to imitate the classes above, which has a trickle-
down impact on the consumer's sense of class.

It is vital to remember that in addition to using celebrities, marketers frequently turn to

reference groups that present an ideal that customers may use as a benchmark when
consuming the product. Because of this, advertisers frequently employ settings from a
specific class in their advertisements to suggest that people from other classes can also
acquire this standing in society.

It is significant to remember that different countries have different ideas of what constitutes a
status well. This is a result of income differences, which make products like GAP clothing
status items in nations like China and India yet mass-market items in the US.

2.4.0. EMPIRICAL REVIEW

This section explained the information from previous studies in connection with the research
objectives of this study. There are many studies which were conducted in outside countries
like South Korea, Nigeria, Australia, Malaysia, etc., to find out how socioeconomic status
affects consumers buying behaviour. According to a study by GAO Et Al. (2019), people
with greater socioeconomic class have a bigger need for the most recent electronic devices,
such as smartphones and tablets. The survey also showed that these customers are prepared to
spend a higher price on these goods in order to represent their identity and social position.

According to a Pew Research Centre analysis from 2021, people with better incomes and
educational levels are also more likely to possess and use a variety of mobile devices, such as
cell phones, laptops, and tablets. The study also found that because they have the money and
the knowledge to keep up with emerging trends, these consumers frequently adopt new
technology early.

The influence of socioeconomic position on mobile device purchasing behaviours, however,

may also be influenced by cultural considerations. For instance, Kim et al.'s (2018) study
discovered that in South Korea, where social status and appeal are highly valued, consumers
with lower socioeconomic levels may also be inclined to buy high-end technology devices as
a way to improve their social standing.

A study on socioeconomic condition and ICT use among Nigerian university students was
also conducted by Adegbola et al. in 2019. In comparison to their higher-income peers, he
discovered that low-income students were less likely to own and use smartphones, laptops,
and other technology for academic purposes. The survey also showed that because they had
less money, kids from low-income families were more inclined to buy cheap, low-quality
electronics.

Chua et al. (2021) in a more recent study also found that students coming from low-income
families saw technological gadgets to be highly expensive and therefore found it better to
purchase at a lower cost. The study also found that students from high-earning families saw
technological gadgets as important tools for succeeding in academics and therefore were
willing to spend a large sum of money and invest in high-quality items/ gadgets.

Another study was done by Zainal et al. (2018) where the findings stated that students’
behaviour in purchasing tech gadgets was influenced by income from their families where
those from high income were more likely to use outstanding gadgets. It also revealed that
students from low-income families were more likely to use older or hand-me-down gadgets
and had challenges in keeping up with the evolving technology.

2.4.1. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH GAP

The review of the studies conducted on consumer behaviour and socioeconomic status mainly
focused on developed countries where most people are well-to-do and where the economy is
stable enough. The studies also used education levels a lot but it is not the only factor that
shows socioeconomic status among people. This study aimed to identify their socioeconomic
factors in relation to the choice of mobile devices among university students in a developing
country with an unstable economy like Malawi.

2.5.0. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

A conceptual framework shows how variables should be related to one another. It outlines
how the research process' important objectives fit together to provide logical findings
(George, 2022).

It consists of an independent variable, a dependent variable and the mediating variable. In this
study, Socioeconomic status was the independent variable, Consumer buying behaviour was
the dependent variable and academic major, gender, and age were the mediating variables.
Conceptual framework

Figure 2

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT

VARIABLE

SOCIOECONOMIC

STATUS CONSUMER
BEHAVIOUR

MEDIATING VARIABLE

WORKING WHILE STUDYING, AGE, GENDER

 CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1. INTRODUCTION

This chapter was about the research methodology that was used to conduct this study. The
content included the Location of the research, the research methodology, research design,
sampling and sampling techniques, methods of data collection and data gathering, data
analysis methods, the population to be studied, ethical considerations, limitations of the
research, and limitations with the methodology.

3.2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This study used quantitative research methodology. The goal of quantitative research was to
collect data on various social phenomena. It used statistical data so that numerical
comparisons and statistical inferences could be made in an effort to confirm or deny the
study's central hypothesis (Voxco, 2021). This methodology was used for this study since it
can be more time and resource efficient due to the usage of standardized tools and practices.
This makes comparing results from several studies simpler. Another benefit of a quantitative
paradigm is that it employs numerical data, which makes it simpler to spot patterns or links in
data that might not be immediately obvious.

3.3. RESEARCH DESIGN

According to Borwankar (1995), a research design is a plan with a specific structure,

strategy, and inquiry to generate search queries and manage variance. Research design,
according to Henry Mayhem, provides a logical foundation for the seemingly innumerable
decisions involved in carrying out data collection, processing, and analysis (Selltiz, 1962).
The study type, in this case descriptive, is determined by the study design.

3.4. POPULATION

Population refers to the whole set of objects from which data is extracted for statistical
analysis. It could be a collection of things, a gathering of people, etc. It serves as the study's
data set.
In general, population refers to the number of people residing in a specific location at a
particular moment. However, the population in statistics relates to information on your
interest subject. It could be a collection of people, things, occasions, organizations, etc. To
make inferences, use populations. In this study, the target population were the students of
MUBAS because they are university students with different socioeconomic statuses. Hence,
they were the ones that could give the data required for the study.

3.5. SAMPLING TECHNIQUE

In conducting research, it is not possible to collect data from every person in that group of
people and in this case the polytechnic community commerce students. The sample,
therefore, was the specific group a person will collect data from (Mc Combes, 2023). This
research aimed to use the probability sampling technique which was good for representing
results for a whole population. The probability sampling technique used a stratified sampling
technique where the strata was based on schools.

3.6. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This research made sure that the people being interviewed were assured of privacy issues and
notified of why they were selected as the appropriate population. Another one is
confidentiality in handling the response details.

3.7. DATA COLLECTION

This study used primary data collected by interviewing students of the polytechnic and
issuing questionnaires to the students. On the questionnaire’s, close ended questions were
asked.

3.8. DATA ANALYSIS

Quantified data was analysed using SPSS using frequency tables and graphs. There was also
correlation analysis to find out how the variables related to each other.

3.9. LIMITATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

The students might not have answered all of the questions in the questionnaire and therefore
this might have affected the analysis of the data and the research findings. In addition, it was
time consuming to analyse data collected through questionnaires. Another disadvantage is
that some respondents were reluctant to answer sensitive questions concerning their
socioeconomic status.

CHAPTER 4

4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter involved the data analysis results, interpretations and discussions of the study. It
presented the findings that were collected from the primary data source, the data was also
discussed and analysed in a way that ensured that the study’s objectives and research
questions were answered. The analysis presented in this chapter was based on the data that
was collected and analysed using SPSS. The data collected in relation to the specific
objectives was analysed quantitatively to provide more clarification on the research.

Descriptive analysis

Response rate of respondents

Table 1

Total Percentage
Distributed questionnaires 100 100%
Response 100 100%

The 100 questionnaires distributed to the students of MUBAS were all answered and
analysed. The 100% response rate was because the questionnaire was made as simple as
possible and it was done online making it easier to answer on a smartphone or any other
mobile device. In addition, the respondents were urged to answer the questionnaire as fellow
students and they really did it.

Demographic information

Table 2

Gender of respondent
 Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Male 46 46.0 46.0 46.0
Female 54 54.0 54.0 100.0
Valid

Total 100 100.0 100.0

mn Figure 3

As the pie chart and the table shows, from a total of 100 respondents the gender of the
respondents shows more female respondents (54%) compared to males (46%) because the
researcher being a female had more access to female respondents than male ones.
Table 3

Age of respondent
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid 16-21 30 30.0 30.0 30.0
22-27 69 69.0 69.0 99.0
28Abov 1 1.0 1.0 100.0
e
 Total 100 100.0 100.0

The respondents indicated their age during the research. From the results, it shows that 30
respondents belonged to the range 16-21 years of age which is 30% of the respondents. The
range of 22-27 years represents 69 respondents making 69% of the respondents and lastly 28
and above was an age indicated by one respondent representing 1% of the respondents. This
shows that a lot of the respondents are young people which can affect whether they are doing
business or employed because most youths find it hard to do extra work or business while
studying.
Table 4

School of study
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
School of science and
6 6.0 6.0 6.0
technology
School of built
3 3.0 3.0 9.0
environment
School of education
Valid communication and 9 9.0 9.0 18.0
media studies
School of engineering 17 17.0 17.0 35.0
School of business and
65 65.0 65.0 100.0
economic sciences
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The study included asking the respondents school of study to find out if the course or school
of study can affect whether a person owns a business or not. From the results, 65% belong to
the school of business and economic sciences, 17% belong to the school of engineering, 9%
belong to the school of education communication and media studies. 3% belonged to the
school of built environment and 6% were from the school of science and technology.
Table 5

Employed or unemployed
 Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Employed 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
Unemployed 72 72.0 72.0 74.0
Valid Doing
26 26.0 26.0 100.0
Business
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The researcher also sought to find out the respondent’s status of being employed or owning a
business. This was to know if being employed or owning a business can also determine the
type of mobile device the respondent owns. The results showed only 2% of the respondents
are employed, 72% are unemployed and 26% represented those doing business.

Figure 4

Findings according to the objective of the study

4.4.1. High socioeconomic status and mobile device brand

A person’s socio-economic status determines how much money they have and their
budget line. This is because someone from a low socio-economic status would have to put
price of a device into clear consideration before purchasing it. Therefore, the researcher
aimed to find out how the respondent’s socioeconomic status was related to the mobile
device brand. The following shows how the researcher dealt with this particular objective.
Table 6

Have phone
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Yes 100 100.0 100.0 100.0
From the data collected every student who answered the questionnaire did have a phone to
use at school hence, the 100% rate. This shows that students really need a phone at school on
the tertiary level. Despite the fact that all respondents’ own phones, what differentiates them
especially in terms of their socioeconomic status is also the brand of their phones. Therefore,
the researcher sought to find out the device brand of each and every respondent.
Table 7

Phone brand
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Techno 30 30.0 30.0 30.0
iPhone 4 4.0 4.0 34.0
Itel 4 4.0 4.0 38.0
Valid
Samsung 15 15.0 15.0 53.0
Other 47 47.0 47.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

Table 7 shows that 30% of the respondents owns Techno brands,4% own the iPhone apple
brand, 4% own the itel, 15 % own the Samsung and 47% own other brands.
https://www.globalbrandsmagazine.com/top-10-mobile-brands-in-world/ shows the ranking
of the phone brands with Samsung ranked as the 1 st, Apple the second and as for the other
brands, they are not even on the top 10.

Table 8

Have laptop
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
 Yes 96 96.0 96.0 96.0
Valid No 4 4.0 4.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The research also aimed to find out if the respondent also owns a laptop so that their socio-
economic status can be analysed through the fact that they own or do not own a laptop. From
the results, 96% owned a laptop and only 4% of the respondents did not own any laptop but
owned a phone.
Table 9

Laptop brand
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Lenovo 20 20.0 20.6 20.6
Dell 16 16.0 16.5 37.1
Valid Hp 42 42.0 43.3 80.4
Other 19 19.0 19.6 100.0
Total 97 97.0 100.0
Missing System 3 3.0
Total 100 100.0
The respondents were also enquired on the brands of the laptops they own if they answered
yes to owning a laptop. The results show that 20% owned a Lenovo laptop, 16% had the dell
brand, 42% had the hp brand and 19% owned other brands. Among the respondents no one
owned thew famous expensive MacBook.
Table 10

Employed or unemployed
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Employed 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
Unemployed 72 72.0 72.0 74.0
Valid Doing
26 26.0 26.0 100.0
Business
Total 100 100.0 100.0
The respondent’s employment status mattered in the research to find out what is influencing
their ability to own a particular mobile device. The results showed 72% were unemployed,
26% doing business and 2% really actually own a business.

loans and parents’ upkeep and one’s choice of mobile device

Table 11

Survival without device

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Strongly
60 60.0 60.0 60.0
disagree
Disagree 21 21.0 21.0 81.0
Valid Neutral 10 10.0 10.0 91.0
Agree 7 7.0 7.0 98.0
Strongly agree 2 2.0 2.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The respondents were asked about whether a student can actually survive without a mobile
device at the university or not. This was asked in order to know if their opinion on this
affected whether they actually own a mobile device or not. The results showed that 60%
strongly disagreed, 21% disagreed, 10% were neutral on the question asked, 7% agreed and
lastly 2% strongly agreed that a student can survive without a mobile device. Since a big
percentage of the respondents strongly disagreed to the statement, it showed the importance
of a mobile device for a university student.
Table 12

Apply for loans

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Yes 80 80.0 80.0 80.0
No 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
 Total 100 100.0 100.0

The researcher also enquired about whether the respondent applies for loans or not taking
note that it is the needy students who actually apply for loans. From the results, 80% of the
respondents do apply for loans and 20% do not apply for loans. This was a clear indication
that
most of the university students are lacking one way or the other. Despite this result it has
already been shown on table 6 that 100% of the respondents owned a phone. It was therefore
important that the researcher knew if the socioeconomic status affected the fact that the
respondent owns a mobile device.
Table 13

Fees upkeep both

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Fees 2 2.0 2.5 2.5
Upkeep 5 5.0 6.3 8.8
Valid
Both 73 73.0 91.3 100.0
Total 80 80.0 100.0
Missing System 20 20.0
Total 100 100.0

Applying for loans is one thing but it differs among the students on the type of loan they
apply for. The results of the research show that 2% of the respondents only apply for fees and
5% apply for only upkeep, while 73% apply for both fees and upkeep. In addition, those who
responded that they do not apply for loans totalled to 20% as it shows that only 80% of the
respondents answered to the type of loans that they applied for. This information would help
the researcher relate the mobile device that the respondents applying for loans own and the
ones owned by the ones who don’t apply for loans.

Table 14

Income from relatives

 Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Yes 76 76.0 76.0 76.0
No 10 10.0 10.0 86.0
Valid
both 14 14.0 14.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

The researcher asked the respondent if they also receive money from their relatives to know
if receiving income from relatives would affect the type of mobile device that the respondent
owned. From the results, 76% answered yes and 10% answered no while 14% answered they
received income from both relatives and guardians.
Table 15

Monthly income
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Yes 19 19.0 19.0 19.0
Valid No 81 81.0 81.0 100.0
Total 100 100.0 100.0

To know the student’s socioeconomic status, the respondents were asked about whether they
could afford to buy a mobile device from their own monthly income. Most of the students can
not actually afford a mobile device from their monthly income. The results from the table
show that 81% answered No and 19% answered Yes.

Students with loan benefit and business and their mobile device brand
Table 16

Apply for loans

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Valid Yes 80 80.0 80.0 80.0
No 20 20.0 20.0 100.0
 Total 100 100.0 100.0
Figure 5

Table 17

Fees upkeep both

Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Fees 2 2.0 2.5 2.5
Upkeep 5 5.0 6.3 8.8
Valid
Both 73 73.0 91.3 100.0
Total 80 80.0 100.0
Missing System 20 20.0
Total 100 100.0
 Figure 6
Table 18
Employed or unemployed
Frequency Percent Valid Cumulative
Percent Percent
Employed 2 2.0 2.0 2.0
Unemployed 72 72.0 72.0 74.0
Valid Doing
26 26.0 26.0 100.0
Business
Total 100 100.0 100.0
Figure 7

As it was explained above, the researcher aimed to find out if the fact that one owns a
business, employed or unemployed would affect their choice of owning a mobile device. In
addition, the enquiry aimed to also connect loan applications to the brand of the respondent
mobile device.

Table 19

Correlations
Phone brand Apply for
loans
Pearson
1 .186
Correlation
Phone brand
Sig. (2-tailed) .065
N 100 100
Pearson
.186 1
Apply for Correlation
loans Sig. (2-tailed) .065
N 100 100
The table above shows the results of the correlation and it clearly shows that it is an
insignificant relationship. This means a person’s phone brand does not depend on whether
they apply for loans or not.
Table 20

Correlations
Apply for Laptop
loans brand
Pearson
1 .018
Apply for Correlation
loans Sig. (2-tailed) .859
N 100 97
Laptop brand Pearson .018 1
Correlation
 Sig. (2-tailed) .859
N 97 97
The next correlation involved the person laptop brand and their answer on loan application.
Again, there was no significance between the two variables.
From the results, 20% did not apply for loans, 26% did business with 2% were employed, and
42% owned the hp brand with 0% of MacBook owners. On the phones, 15% owned a
Samsung, 4% owned an iPhone and 47% owned the other brands.

Table 21

Correlations

Age of School of study Employed or

respondent unemployed

Pearson Correlation 1 -.050 .043

Age of respondent
Sig. (2-tailed) .620 .672

N 100 100 100

 Pearson Correlation -.050 1 -.124

School of study
Sig. (2-tailed) .620 .218

N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation .043 -.124 1

Employed or unemployed
Sig. (2-tailed) .672 .218

N 100 100 100

Survival without device

Pearson Correlation .250* -.207* .025

Sig. (2-tailed) .012 .039 .808

 N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation .b .b .b

Sig. (2-tailed) . . .
Have phone

N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation .025 -.037 .027

Sig. (2-tailed) .808 .714 .793
Phone brand
N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation .125 .077 -.104

Have laptop
Sig. (2-tailed) .217 .446 .304

N 100 100 100

Laptop brand

Pearson Correlation .091 .138 .030

Sig. (2-tailed) .377 .178 .767

 N 97 97 97

Pearson Correlation .270** -.012 .265**

How device was bought

Sig. (2-tailed) .007 .907 .008

N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation .256* .005 -.095

Different mobile device

Sig. (2-tailed) .010 .961 .347

N 100 100 100

Apply for loans Pearson Correlation -.168 .013 .117

 Sig. (2-tailed) .094 .897 .248

N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation -.088 .079 -.006

Fees upkeep both

Sig. (2-tailed) .440 .485 .957

N 80 80 80

Pearson Correlation -.029 .084 -.092

Income from relatives or

guardians Sig. (2-tailed) .777 .408 .362

N 100 100 100

 Pearson Correlation -.135 .203* .030

Monthly income
Sig. (2-tailed) .182 .043 .765

N 100 100 100

Pearson Correlation .006 -.117 .060

Credit purchasing
Sig. (2-tailed) .956 .248 .550

N 100 100 100

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
b. Cannot be computed because at least one of the variables is constant.
Furthermore, the table above shows a pairwise correlation table. In the results, Age and how
device was bought were related positively at (0,270). This shows that the mode of buying a
mobile device was affected by the age of the respondent.

The respondent’s school of study and their response on survival without mobile device also
relate negatively at ( -0.207). This clearly shows that difference in the school one belongs in
cannot affect whether they own a mobile device or not and hence also have a different
opinion on whether a student can survive without a mobile phone or not.in addition,
difference in courses also means different ways of using a mobile device and also different
levels of importance on owning a mobile device or not while at the university.

The respondent being employed unemployed or owning a business related positively at

(0.265) to their response on how their mobile device was bought. A persons socioeconomic
status is usually determined by their income, occupational prestige, wealth and educational
attainment. In this case someone who is employed or owning a business obviously had
different socioeconomic status compared to the one without employment and no business.
The positive correlation is against the null hypothesis that there is no relationship between
one’s socioeconomic status and the type of mobile device they own. (Mattson and Kareholt,
2017). The phone brand also and how the respondent’s mobile device was bought relates
negatively at a coefficient of -0.207 this is in agreement with the study’s null hypothesis that
there is no relationship between a person’s socioeconomic status and their mobile device
choice

The Respondents agreement towards survival without a mobile device also depended on the
age of the respondent relating at a (0.250) correlation positively

There is also a negative correlation of 0.259 between the variable of owning a different
mobile device if the respondent was from a different socioeconomic status and their response
on whether they apply for fees, loans and upkeep. This was in agreement with our null
hypothesis that stated that there is actually a relationship between applying for loans or fees
and upkeep and one’s choice of mobile device.

One’s monthly income and school of study also related positively 0.203

lastly the respondents answer on buying a device using monthly income and on whether one
can survive without a mobile device or not were also related negatively at (-0.239).
 CHAPTER 5

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 CONCLUSION

The findings from this research will help understand why students own different types of
mobile devices and help marketers to target the right audience based on their preferences
considering their socioeconomic status. The research will also help the different leaders of
universities find ways how their students can own good mobile devices considering its
importance in a student’s life.

The research has shown that the two variables, socioeconomic status and a person’s choice of
mobile device are not related and at the same time, The phone brand that a person owns
relates negatively (-0.207) with how the student’s device was bought. This means the mode
of purchase or how the money for purchasing was found does not determine the mobile
device that one chooses.

RECOMMENDATIONS

There is a need for the lecturers to encourage students no matter the course they are doing to
do business while studying so that they are able to buy good mobile devices that can help
with their academic journey.
There is need to do more research to find out how the life of students can be made better
through easy access to mobile devices.

References

(n.d.).

II, M. (2018). Malawi national support programme II(MNSSP II).

Kenton, W. (2022). What is disposable income and why is it important? Bugdgeting and
Savings.

Liberto, D. (2023, March 24). Consumer Theory : Definition, Meaning, Objective, and
Example. Economics,guide to microeconomics.

libralies, L. t. (2022, August 4). Socio-economic status. Retrieved from

https://status.libretexts.org/

Limbani Chrispin Ghama, G. T. (2022, May 3). Electronic learning benefits and chalenges in
Malawis higher education: a literature review. Education and information
technologies.

Nations, U. (2021). Least developed country category. Department of economic and social
affairs.

Nawal, A. (2023, March). What is consumer behaviour.

team, E. (n.d.). What is cunsumer choice theory? Retrieved April 20th, 2023, from https
://www.ecnmy.org
Shukla, P. (2019). Consumer behaviour and purchase intention for smartphones among young
consumers in India. Journal of Global Marketing, 32(1), 1-14. (Shukla, 2019)

Khalifa, M., & Shen, N. (2018). Explaining the adoption of social commerce services: An
empirical study. Internet Research, 28(2), 325-345. (Khalifa & Shen, 2018)

Nguyen, T. T., & Nguyen, H. T. (2019). Exploring the influence of socio-economic factors
on online purchase intention of Vietnamese consumers. Journal of Asian Finance,
Economics, and Business, 6(1), 237-246. (Nguyen & Nguyen, 2019)

Chimombo, J. P., & Gombachika, H. S. (2017). An exploration of face\tors influencing the

adoption of smartphones by university students in Malawi. International Journal of Business
and Economic Sciences Applied Research, 10(2), 32-40. (Chimombo & Gombachika, 2017)

Engel, J. F., Blackwell, R. D., & Miniard, P. W. (1990). Consumer Behaviour (8th Ed.).
Dryden Press.

George, B. S. (2022, August 2). What is a Conceptual Framework.

Kenton, W. (2022). What is disposable income and why is it important? Bugdgeting and
Savings.

Kwak, H. &. (2019). Socioeconomic status and impulse buying behaviour: A moderated
model. 98, 110-118.

Moschis. (2012). Consumer behaviour in later life. Multidisciplinary contributions and

implications for research and practice, 1149-1152.
Team, C. (2022, December 6). Diffusion of Innovation: the rate at which new ideas and
technology spread.

Voxco. (2021, July 15). 5 types of quantitative research. Voxco.

McCombes, S. (2023, March 27). Sampling Methods | Types, Techniques &

Examples. Scribbr. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/sampling-methods/

https://www.globalbrandsmagazine.com/top-10-mobile-brands-in-world/

APPENDICES

SCHOOL OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC SCIENCE

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT

BACHELOR OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

YEAR 4

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR A RESEARCH PROPOSAL

Dear Respondent,

My name is Immaculate Pawira, and I am researching the topic: The Relationship Between
Socioeconomic Status and People’s Choice of Mobile Devices: A Case of Mubas
Students. The research will be conducted while respecting the respondents' privacy and
confidential information.

SECTION A: GENERAL INFORMATION

1. Gender

Male

Female

2. Age
16-21 22-27 28 above

3. School

School Science and technology

School of built environment

School of education communication and media studies

School of engineering

School of business and economic sciences

 4. Are you
Employed unemployed doing business

5. Do you think a university student can survive without a mobile device?

Strongly disagree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly disagree

SECTION B: ASSESSING THE PERSONS MOBILE DEVICE BRAND

6. Do you have a phone?

Yes No

7. If yes what is the brand of your phone?

Techno
iPhone

Itel

Samsung

Other (Specify)

8. Do you have a laptop?

Yes No

10. If yes what is the brand of your laptop

Lenovo

Dell

MacBook
Hp

Other
SECTIO
N B: ASSESSING THE PERSONS SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

11. How did you buy or get the mobile device you selected above?

Parents/ Guardian

Self
 Well-wisher

Other

12. Do you think you would own a different type of mobile device had it been you had a
different socioeconomic status?

Yes

No

13. Do you apply for loans?

Yes

No

14. Is it for fees only or upkeep as well? Or one of them

Fees

Upkeep

Both

15. Do you also receive income from guardians and relatives?

Yes

NO

Both
16. Do you think you can buy a mobile device from your monthly income?

Yes

No

17. Would access to credit purchasing help you in owning a good mobile device?

Yes

No

THIS IS THE END OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE THANK YOU FOR YOUR

PARTICIPATION.