Selection Determinants in College Students’ Financial Tools

Abstract

Recently, considerable concern has arisen over the complex financial markets, which are inclined to require more individual responsibility. Accordingly, students have to bear more responsibility for their financial management. Nevertheless, in a sluggish economy with high unemployment, the commercial events during the last decade have rendered the transition into financial independence more challenging for social freshmen. In addition, some statistical information has revealed the negative outgrowth that occurred in the wake of student loans and the reduction of beginning salaries. Given the aforementioned hidden risks of finance and the importance of money management, we thus endeavored to investigate the factors students consider when choosing financial tools. For the sake of providing students with information for reference, we delivered a similar questionnaire to professionals in the field. We used the received data to examine the gap between experts’ views and students’ perceptions and then inferred possible reasons for the comparison results.The AHP serves as the chief instrument for calculating relative importance and weighting the significance of the factors. We sent the questionnaires to 140 college students at National Chiayi University and 20 professionals in the financial field and 20 professionals in financial field. The general results indicate that opinions differ among individual students, and opinions of students are rather different from those of the experts; thus, we propose that financial institutions should take different opinions into consideration when designing their financial products.

Full text

International Education Studies; Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
ISSN 1913-9020 E-ISSN 1913-9039
Published by Canadian Center of Science and Education
141
Selection Determinants in College Students’ Financial Tools
Wei- Ting Huang1
1 Department of Education, National Chiayi University, Taiwan
Correspondence: Wei-Ting Huang, Department of Education, National Chiayi University, 85 Wenlong Minshong,
Chiayi County, Taiwan. Tel: 11-886-986-395-789. E-mail: pooh04193324@gmail.com
Received: June 25, 2015 Accepted: August 7, 2015 Online Published: January 25, 2016
doi:10.5539/ies.v9n2p141 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ies.v9n2p141
Abstract
Recently, considerable concern has arisen over the complex financial markets, which are inclined to require more
individual responsibility. Accordingly, students have to bear more responsibility for their financial management.
Nevertheless, in a sluggish economy with high unemployment, the commercial events during the last decade
have rendered the transition into financial independence more challenging for social freshmen. In addition, some
statistical information has revealed the negative outgrowth that occurred in the wake of student loans and the
reduction of beginning salaries. Given the aforementioned hidden risks of finance and the importance of money
management, we thus endeavored to investigate the factors students consider when choosing financial tools. For
the sake of providing students with information for reference, we delivered a similar questionnaire to
professionals in the field. We used the received data to examine the gap between experts’ views and students’
perceptions and then inferred possible reasons for the comparison results.The AHP serves as the chief instrument
for calculating relative importance and weighting the significance of the factors. We sent the questionnaires to
140 college students at National Chiayi University and 20 professionals in the financial field and 20
professionals in financial field. The general results indicate that opinions differ among individual students, and
opinions of students are rather different from those of the experts; thus, we propose that financial institutions
should take different opinions into consideration when designing their financial products.
Keywords: selection determinants, financial tools, college students
1. Introduction
In recent years, considerable concern has arisen over the complex financial markets, which are inclined to
require more individual responsibility (Letkiewicz & Fox, 2014); therefore, students have to bear more
responsibility for their financial management. Nevertheless, in a sluggish economy with high unemployment, the
commercial events during the last decade have rendered the transition into financial independence more
challenging for social freshmen. In addition, some statistical information has revealed the negative outgrowth
that occurred in the wake of student loans and the reduction of beginning salaries.
According to the Department of Statistics in Taiwan, the number of applicants for student loans increased by
more than 550,000 between 1994 and 2013, indicating that students will be in debt right after graduation. The
other data demonstrating the potential crises for new graduates is the reduction of beginning salaries. As
estimated by the Ministry of Labor, beginning salaries of university graduates in Taiwan declined from 27,462 to
26,915 New Taiwan (NT) dollars in 14 years (1999–2013); however, the cumulative price index rose by 15%
within the same period. In these circumstances, young adults are confronted with more difficulties to generate
revenues and expenditures in a balanced manner. As a result, money management and asset accumulation are of
paramount importance at this juncture. For younger generations, building economic capital serves as their
top-most priority as this is the phase in which they can start to prepare for their future lives. However, not
everyone knows how to efficiently save their money. Most individuals tend to lack self-control and fail to spend
in moderation. In other words, people with low self-control may fail to spend money efficiently (Faber & Vohs,
2004; Verplanken & Herabadi, 2001). In view of these situations, the young generation ought to prepare for
personal finance in a precarious environment and do their utmost efforts to manage risks.
Given the aforementioned hidden risks of finance and the importance of money management, we thus
endeavoured to investigate the factors students consider when choosing financial tools. For the sake of providing
students with information for reference, we delivered a similar questionnaire to professionals in the field. We

www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
142
used the received data to examine the gap between experts’ views and students’ perceptions and then inferred
possible reasons for the comparison results.
2. Literature Review
Money management, which comprises planning, investigating, and implementing one’s financial selection, has
exerted tremendous effect on daily lives (Elbogen, Tiegreen, & Vaughan, 2011). For instance, in work
environments, a fundamental knowledge of money management is required to understand how earnings, taxes,
and other financial investments relate to each other. Moreover, in living environments, personal budgets (such as
bills, groceries, bank accounts, savings) also involve financial management (Dunn, Wewiorski, & Rogers, 2008).
Certain economic variables can impact one’s finances; hence, personal budgeting must be done by individuals to
limit their daily expenses and save money (Maharesi & Hermawati, 2014). In order to figure out what aspect
students and experts perceive as important, we divided the nine determinants into three dimensions: profit, risk,
and convenience. These dimensions will be deliberated in the ensuing parts.
2.1 Profit Dimension Discuss
2.1.1 Profitability
Probability, measured with income and expenses, is the fundamental goal of all financial activities. Neither
businesses nor investors will survive in the long run without making a profit; hence, it is crucial to estimate past
and present profitability and plan for upcoming profitability. Profitability can be defined as (1) accounting profits
and (2) economic profits. Accounting profit is defined as the total earnings of a corporation, which include
overall costs of business operation such as depreciation, interest and taxes. And economic profit stands as the
extra profits one would have made which considers assorted factors such as inflation and interest rates (Erdogan
& Al, 2010).
2.1.2 Tax Deduction
Tax regulations that permit various expenses to be deducted from taxable revenues differ from region to region.
Generally, tax deductions are defined as the removal of adjusted gross income to benefit consumers or investors
by lowering the entire tax-expense liability (Poterba & Sinai, 2008). Due to the advantages that tax deductions
offer, certain governmental policies are constantly utilized to encourage taxpayers to engage in activities with
societal benefits, such as charitable donations or insurance (Okten & Weisbrod, 2000).
2.2 Risk Management
Throughout modern society, the concept of risk is pervasive and has also received widespread attention (Tulloch
& Lupton, 2003), whereas definitions of risk have differed considerably within the last decade. Paul (2000)
stated that risk is a result of societal concern about coping with the hazards of contemporary life whereas Alona
(2010) proposed that risk is a notion with no single accurate definition on account of its complexity and that is
influenced by numerous aspects such as cultural, economic, and genetic factors. Moreover, numerous researchers
have suggested that risk is also relevant to social and political issues (Petersen & Wilkinson, 2008), while others
regard risk as dangerous and harmful (Kettles, 2004; Slovic, Peters, Finucance, & MacGregor, 2005). Hence, the
issue of risk management is crucial for individuals. Risk management has expanded drastically in its
wide-stretching influence and significance since the middle 1990s. During these years, risk management has
been transformed from “management control” to a benchmark of efficient administration for organizations or
individuals. Stulz (1996) indicated that risk management represents selecting which risks to bear based on
numerous considerations rather than minimizing risk by escaping from the obstacles. For a specific statement of
risk management, Cappels (2004) suggested that four steps are required to evaluate and manage risk:
identification of potential risks, quantification of risks, development of a reaction to risk, and risks reaction
control.
2.2.1 Interest Rate Risk
Interest rate risk is relevant to commercial banks’ possible losses that result from the uncertainty of a variable
interest rate. As commercial banks can sustain losses in business if rates fluctuate unexpectedly, managing the
interest rate risk is critical for a bank to survive (Arida, Bacha, & Resende, 2006). Hence, financial regulators
ought to evaluate and control it cautiously as interest rate spikes can devastate the entire financial system
(William & Mahmoud, 2014).
2.2.2 Investment Risk
When making investments, risk is a critical component that deserves consideration. Investment risk refers to the
uncertainty of future investment income and the possible losses of revenues or even capital (Arrow & Lind,

www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
143
2014). Generally speaking, most investors prefer investments with less risk as they will be more lucrative.
Nevertheless, some might consider high-risk investment as favourable due to the better return (Maudos, Pastor,
Perez, & Quesada, 2002).
2.2.3 Default Risk
In our research, we focus on the default risk of banks or financial organizations rather than investors. Default
risk (also called credit risk), a kind of risk in bond investment, is generally defined as the possibility that banks
might fail to pay back the principal and interest (Neal, 1996). Default risk also refers to the occasion when
companies are incapable of paying the required disbursements on their debt responsibilities (Athreya, Tam, &
Young, 2012). Neal (1996) stated that default arises when debtors (banks) are unable to carry out financial
obligations (fulfilling interest payments or repaying loans).
The rate of credit risk typically upsurges during a period of economic downturn as individual income
deteriorates within the phase, rendering it more difficult to pay back the required debt and interest payment.
Meanwhile, the probability of credit risk declines during economic progresses as ample revenues will lower
default rates (Lowe, 2002).
2.3 Convenience
When it comes to investment, the capital threshold is the most preliminary consideration for investors. In general,
investing in funds requires less capital than investing in stocks, making fixed deposits, or making demand
deposits. In Taiwan, it requires at least 100,000 NT dollars for one to make a fixed deposit (in bank or post
office). For those who invest in the stock market, much capital is demanded, meaning it might be unaffordable
for new graduates with low income to invest in stocks. Investing in funds requires the lowest capital, relatively
speaking, and may come as the priority for investors. No specific capital threshold is required to purchase funds;
even only 1,000 NT dollars per month are permitted.
In addition, investors do not need to constantly note the condition of the financial market as the professional
investment agent will help navigate the situation. Unlike investing in funds, stock investors must continuously be
attentive to the rise and fall of stock prices and global economic fluctuations.
Another critical factor that deserves cautious consideration is the flexibility of capital application. For example,
with deposit insurance, although the capital threshold is also low, the insurance contract clause renders it hard to
withdraw funds at any time. Investors cannot receive a refund until the expiration date, and no interest is paid
before the assumed premium term. Investors can only withdraw money by cancellation. However, while
investing in funds, investors are allowed to decide whether or not to purchase it themselves; hence, it offers
rather high flexibility for capital application when investing in funds.
3. Methodology
3.1 Reasons for Adopting the Analytic Hierarchy Process
The chief purposes of this investigation were to identify students’ and professionals’ major consideration while
selecting financial tools. From the data of measuring the relative importance of each considering element, we
examine the gap between experts’ views and students’ perceptions. The AHP serves as the chief instrument for
calculating relative importance and weighting the significance of the factors. The essential tactic of AHP is to
resolve a complex problem into several tiny problems that are more easily settled and also clarify the subordinate
relationships among each of the elements being inspected. AHP functions to simplify and reform complicated
problems into an organized hierarchy. We adopted AHP as our major instrument as it contains numerous
strengths: (1) gathering opinions from experts; (2) calculating relative weights for individual factors of the
hypothesized model; (3) validating the consistency of the ratings; (4) helping to select the best decision from
many complicated options (Saaty, 1990).
AHP is appropriate for this research as it presents the relative importance of every factor, and the factors are
relative measure instead of objective determinant. We thus designed an AHP questionnaire, and the relative
weights of the elements were defined by comparing in pairs of verbal judgements.
Based on the previously reviewed literature, the AHP structure was designed. As Figure 1 shows, the main goal
which is to choose the finest financial tool, is located in the uppermost level; the second level is comprised of the
three chief dimensions (i.e., profit, risk, and convenience); and the third level is comprised of the factors for
considering the dimensions: high profitability, few tax deductions, few administrative expenses, interest rate risk,
investment risks, default risk, low capital threshold, simple procedure, and high flexibility.

www.ccse
n
3.2 Quest
i
The ques
t
demograp
h
factors fo
r
3.3 Resea
r
We s en t t
h
financial
f
validated
f
4. Resear
c
4.1 Partic
i
The sam
p
p
articipan
t
business.
4.2 AHP
R
Microsoft
constitute
confirm t
h
The resea
r
“profit” a
s
than stud
e
material g
o
they tend
know mu
c
Although
negative
e
p
rofessio
n
risk rather
Id
e
n
et.org
/
ies
i
onnaire Desi
g
t
ionnaire con
s
h
ical informa
t
r
AHP analysi
s
r
ch Participan
h
e questionn
a
f
ield. A total o
f
f
o
r
the AHP a
n
c
h Results
i
pants
’
Demo
g
p
le was comp
r
t
s were from
R
esults
Excel was
a
the second-
a
h
e reliability a
n
r
ch results of
t
s
pec
t
(.338) t
h
e
nts (.449 an
d
o
ods, so they
m
to neglect th
e
c
h about the
the
p
rofessio
n
e
ffects of that
n
als have to ta
k
than high-
p
a
y
e
al Financi
a
g
n
s
iste
d
of tw
o
t
ion, and the s
s
.
ts
a
ire to 140 co
l
f
130 questio
n
n
alysis.
g
raphic
I
nfor
m
r
ised of 130
the social sci
e
a
dopted to co
n
a
n
d
third-leve
l
n
d validity.
t
he AHP anal
y
h
an the expert
d
.213, respec
m
igh
t
desire
m
e
aftermath th
a
operations o
f
n
als also nee
d
risk as well
a
k
e care of the
y
ing investme
n
a
l Tool
Internatio
n
Figure
1
o
segments.
T
econd one co
m
l
lege students
n
naires from st
u
m
ation
students: 49
e
nces field, 4
2
n
duc
t
the A
H
l
AHP
p
roced
u
y
sis (Table 1)
s, who are m
o
tively). This
m
m
oney. As the
y
at
potential ri
s
f
the financia
l
d
money, they
a
s the
b
enefit
s
i
r
own famili
e
n
ts with highe
r
Pr
o
Ri
s
Conve
n
n
al Education St
u
144
1
. AHP struct
u
T
he first on
e
m
prise
d
12
pa
at National
C
u
dents and 20
(38%) males
2
(33%) fro
m
H
P procedure
u
res; therefor
e
indicated tha
t
o
re concerned
m
igh
t
be due
y
do not
p
osse
sk
might
b
rin
g
l market, the
y
have more e
x
s
that operati
o
e
s, so they
p
r
e
r
risk.
o
fit
sk
n
ience
u
dies
u
re
e
included q
u
a
irs of questio
n
C
hiayi Unive
r
questionnaire
and 81 (62
%
m
science and
in our resea
r
e
, we applied
t
students atta
c
about “risk”
to students
t
ss adequate e
x
g
about. On t
h
y
might also
x
perience an
d
o
nal convenie
n
e
fe
r
investme
n
High Pro
Tax Ded
u
Few Ad
m
Interest
R
Investm
e
Default
R
Low Ca
p
Simple P
High Fle
x
u
estions abou
t
n
s including
3
r
sity and 20
p
s from expert
s
%
) females.
O
technology, a
n
r
ch. More th
a
eigenvector
c
c
h much mor
e
(.451) and “c
o
t
ending to ha
v
x
perience in t
h
h
e other hand,
ignore the c
o
d
know more
a
n
ce can
b
ring
.
n
ts with const
a
fitability
u
ctions
m
inistrative
E
R
ate Ris
k
e
nt Ris
k
R
is
k
p
ital Thresh
o
rocedure
x
ibility
Vol. 9, No. 2;
t
the
p
artici
p
3
dimensions
a
p
rofessionals i
n
s
were receive
d
O
f these, 45 (
3
a
n
d
42 (33%)
a
n two altern
a
c
onsistency te
s
e
importance
t
o
nvenience” (
v
e more desi
r
h
e financial m
a
as students d
o
o
mplex
p
roc
e
a
bou
t
the
p
ot
e
. In addition,
a
n
t
returns an
d
E
xpenses
o
l
d
2016
p
ants’
a
n
d
9
n
the
d
and
3
4%)
from
a
tives
s
ts to
o
the
.
225)
e
for
a
rket,
o
not
dure.
e
ntial
most
d
low

www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
145
Table 1. Weights of the three dimensions perceived by professionals and students
Professionals Students
Aspect Weight Aspect We i gh t
Profit .324 Profit .338
Risk .451 Risk .449
Convenience .225 Convenience .213
As Table 2 shows, female students consider the profit aspect more than male students. Nevertheless, male
students put much emphasis on the risk aspect. For the convenience aspect, opinions of female and male students
are similar. Generally, male students hold a similar opinion of profit, risk, and convenience as the professionals.
Table 2. Weights of the three dimensions perceived by male and female students
Males Females
Aspect Weight Aspect Weight
Profit 0.314 Profit 0.354
Risk 0.473 Risk 0.434
Convenience 0.214 Convenience 0.212
Business students put much emphasis on the convenience aspect when making investments, although social
science students regard the profit aspect as more important. Despite the fact that opinions of business students
are generally considered closer to those of the professionals, opinions of students in science and technology were
more similar to the experts’ opinions in this study.
Table 3. Weights of the three dimensions perceived by students from different fields
Social Sciences Science and Technology Business
Aspect Weight Aspect Weight Aspect Weight
Profit 0.304 Profit 0.344 Profit 0.366
Risk 0.477 Risk 0.436 Risk 0.432
Convenience 0.218 Convenience 0.220 Convenience 0.201
The results for the third level of the AHP analysis (Table 4) indicated that investment risk (.214 and .288) was
regarded as the most crucial factor by both professionals and students. Professionals thought default risk (.164)
was the second important factor, followed by high profitability (.162), whereas students viewed high profitability
(.192) as their second concern, followed by default risk (.112).

www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
146
Table 4. Weights of the determinant factors
Professionals Students
Rank Item Weight Rank Item Weight
1 Investment Risks 0.214 1 Investment Risks 0.288
2 Default Risks 0.164 2 High Profitability 0.192
3 High Profitability 0.162 3 Default Risks 0.112
4 High Flexibility 0.135 4 Interest Rate Risk 0.102
5 Tax Deductions 0.088 5 High Flexibility 0.094
6 Few Administrative
Expenses
0.074 6 Tax Deductions 0.089
7 Interest Rate Risk 0.073 7 Low Capital Threshold 0.054
8 Simple Procedure 0.050 8 Few Administrative Expenses 0.038
9 Low Capital Threshold 0.039 9 Simple Procedure 0.031
5. Conclusion and Suggestions
As examining how students define an ideal financial tool is a fundamental requirement for guiding them to select
a suitable one that accords with their desires, this research endeavoured to classify the chief factors of financial
tool selection recognized by students and measure the relative importance of each factor.
Table 1 indicated that most experts emphasized the dimensions of risk and convenience more whereas students
considered profit to be more important. One possible reason for this phenomenon is that students tend to have
more desire for material enjoyment, so they need more money. In addition, students lack experience in the
financial market, so they might also neglect the complex procedures. On the other hand, experts have more
experience and know more about the possible negative effects of risk and benefits that operational convenience
will bring; as a result, they prefer investments with constant returns and low risk rather than high paybacks and
high risk.
Table 2 showed that female students consider the profit aspect more than male students, who put more emphasis
on the risk aspect. Both female and male students have similar opinions about the convenience aspect. Generally,
male students hold similar opinions on profit, risk, and convenience as the professionals.
Table 3 demonstrated that business students emphasize the convenience aspect more when making an investment
while social science students regard the profit aspect more. Although business students are generally expected to
have opinions more like those of the professionals, opinions of students in science and technology were more
similar to the experts’ opinions in this study.
The third level of the AHP analysis (Table 4) showed that investment risk was considered the most crucial
element by both professionals and students. Default risk and high profitability were included in the top three
important factors (yet the ranking differed among experts and students).
These general results indicate that opinions differ among individuals; thus, we propose that financial institutions
should take different opinions into consideration when designing their financial products. Financial institutions
such as banks and insurance companies should focus more on customizing their products to be in line with the
needs of students from different backgrounds.
Moreover, opinions of the students are rather different from those of the experts. As a result, students ought to
acquire greater exposure to financial knowledge so that they can enhance their competence in fiscal management.
In addition, higher educational institutions should provide relevant courses or seminars for students to improve
their capability in selecting and using financial tools.
Given our results, we highly suggest that a follow-up investigation containing financial tools such as stocks,
funds, fixed deposits, demand deposits, deposit insurance, and investment-oriented insurance be conducted to
assist students in choosing the ideal financial tools.

www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
147
References
Alona, D. A. (2010). Concept Analysis of Risk in Relation to Coronary Heart Disease among Filipino-Americans.
Nursing Forum, 45(4), 253-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6198.2010.00198.x
Arida, P., Bacha, E., & Lara-Resende, A. (2005). Credit, interest, and jurisdictional uncertainty: conjectures on
the case of Brazil. Inflation targeting, debt, and the Brazilian experience, 1999 to 2003, 265-293.
Arrow, K. J., & Lind, R. C. (2014). Uncertainty and the evaluation of public investment decisions. Journal of
Natural Resources Policy Research, 6(1), 29-44.
Athreya, K. B., Tam, X. S., & Young, E. R. (2012). Debt default and the insurance of labor income risk.
Economic Quarterly, 98(4), 255-307.
Cappels, M. T. (2004). Financially focused project management. Vancouver: J. Ross Publishing, Inc.
Dunn, E. C., Wewiorski, N. J., & Rogers, E. S. (2008). The meaning and importance of employment to people in
recovery from serious mental illness: Results of a qualitative study. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 32,
59-62. DOI:10.2975/32.1.2008.59.62.
Elbogen, E. B., Tiegreen, J., & Vaughan, C. (2011). Money management, mental health, and psychiatric
disability: A recovery-oriented model for improving financial skills. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal,
34(3), 223-231.
Erodgan, B., & Al, C. (2010). Neoliberalism, the rate of profit and the rate of accumulation. Science and Society,
74(3), 323-342.
Faber, R. J., & Vohs, K. D. (2004). To buy or not to buy: Self-control and self-regulatory failure in purchase
behavior. In R. F. Baumeister & K. D. Vohs (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and
applications. New York: Guilford Press.
Kettles, A. M. (2004). A concept analysis of forensic risk. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 11,
484-493. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2850.2004.00752.x.
Letkiewicz, J. C., & Fox, J. J. (2014). Conscientiousness, financial literacy, and asset accumulation of young
adults. The Journal of Consumer Affairs, 48(2), 274-3 00. http://dx.doi.org/1 0.1111/joca.12040.
Lowe, P. W. (2002). Credit risk measurement and procyclicality. BIS Working Paper No. 116.
Maharesi, R., & Hermawati, S. (2014). Predicting sharia stock performance in Indonesia stock market using
support vector machine algorithm for imbalance data. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 9(1),
22-38.
Maudos, J., Pastor, J. M., Perez, F., & Quesada, J. (2004). Cost and profit efficiency in European banks. Journal
of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 12(1), 33-58.
Okten, C., & Weisbrod, B. A. (2000). Determinants of donations in private nonprofit markets. Journal of Public
Economics, 75(2), 255-272.
Paul, S. (2000). The perception of risk. Risk, society, and policy series. London, England: Earthscan Publications.
Petersen, A., & Wilkinson, I. (2008). Health, risk and vulnerability. New York: Routledge.
Poterba, J., & Sinai, T. (2008). Tax expenditures for owner-occupied housing: Deductions for property taxes and
mortgage interest and the exclusion of imputed rental income. The American Economic Review, 98(2),
84-89.
Saaty, T. L, & Vargas, L. G. (1994). Decision Making in Economic, Politic, Social and Technological
Environments with the Analytic Hierarchy Process. Pittsburgh, PA: RWS Publications.
Slovic, P., Peters, E., Finucance, M., & MacGregor, D. G. (2005). Affect, risk, and decision making. Health
Psychology, 24(4), S35-S40.
Stulz, R. M. (1996). Rethinking risk management. Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 9(3), 8-25.
Tulloch, J., & Lupton, D. (2003). Risk and everyday life. London: Sage.
Vargas, L. G. (1990). An overview of the analytic hierarchy process and its applications. European Journal of
Operational Research, 48(1), 2-8.
Verplanken, B., & Herabadi, A. ( 2001). Individual differences in impulse buying tendency: Feeling and no
thinking. European Journal of Personality, 15(S1), S71-S83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.423.

www.ccsenet.org/ies International Education Studies Vol. 9, No. 2; 2016
148
William, B., & Mahmoud, E. (2014). Interest rate risk and rising maturities. Economic Commentary, 22, 1-4.
Yen, N. S., & Tsai, F. C. (2007). Risk perception in Taiwan. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 77-84.
Copyrights
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).