Investment Awareness and Financial Behaviour Among Salaried Individuals: Evidence from Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad

1. Introduction

A steady salary makes saving easier, but it does not make investing automatic. Whether a salaried person actually puts money into investments depends on how familiar they are with the options, how risky those options feel, what they are saving for, where they get their information, and whether they feel able to compare alternatives. Investment awareness is therefore a practical part of personal financial management, especially for people who have to weigh risk, return, liquidity, diversification and time horizon against one another.

The wider literature treats financial literacy as more than familiarity with product names. Lusardi and Mitchell[1] review evidence linking financial knowledge to economic decision-making, and van Rooij, Lusardi and Alessie[2] link financial literacy to stock-market participation. Fernandes, Lynch and Netemeyer[3], however, show that literacy and education explain less of later financial behaviour than simple correlations suggest. Studies from India add that knowledge, attitudes and behaviour interact differently across groups.[4]

Our approach is deliberately narrower. We do not attempt to measure objective financial literacy with a validated scale. Instead, we ask salaried respondents in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad how aware they feel of investments and pair that with questions on budgeting, saving, current investment participation, information sources, goals, preferred options, challenges and investment horizon. The unit of analysis is the individual respondent. The study is a local, descriptive contribution: the design does not allow causal claims or population estimates, and the association tests are exploratory.

2. Literature Review

Financial literacy has been examined as an important factor in household financial decision-making. Lusardi and Mitchell[5] discuss financial knowledge in the context of economic decision-making and view it as an important form of human capital. Their work provides a basis for considering financial knowledge as part of broader financial capability. However, familiarity with financial concepts or products alone may not provide a complete measure of an individual's financial literacy. This distinction is relevant to the present study because investment awareness is assessed through respondents' own perceptions rather than through a validated financial-literacy test.

Research by Van Rooij et al.[6] further illustrates the difference between basic financial knowledge and a deeper understanding of financial concepts. Their study, conducted in the Netherlands, used specific survey measures of financial literacy and examined knowledge relating to areas such as diversification and financial instruments. The findings suggest that recognising basic financial concepts does not necessarily imply an understanding of the risks and characteristics associated with financial products. This distinction is important when examining investment awareness because an individual may know about an investment avenue without having a detailed understanding of its risk and return characteristics.

The relationship between financial knowledge and actual financial behaviour also requires careful interpretation. Fernandes et al.[7], in their review of previous research, examined the extent to which financial literacy and education explain subsequent financial behaviour. Their findings indicate that the relationship is less straightforward than simple correlations may suggest. Therefore, the present study treats investment awareness and investment participation as related but distinct aspects of financial behaviour. The analysis examines associations between these variables without interpreting an observed relationship as evidence of causation.

Indian research provides additional context, although the studies differ in terms of population, measurement and research design. Garg and Singh[8] examined financial literacy among young people and highlighted differences associated with demographic and socioeconomic characteristics. Gupta[9] investigated salaried individuals in Delhi and reported relationships involving financial literacy, awareness of financial products and investment behaviour. Arora and Chakraborty[10] examined financial literacy and investment choices in India, including preferences involving traditional assets such as gold and property, as well as stock-market participation. Shroff, Paliwal and Dewasiri[11] used a multidimensional measure of financial literacy and regression analysis to examine Indian investors. More recently, Prakash, Adhikari and Poudyal[12] studied state government employees in Sikkim using purposive sampling and reported low-to-moderate levels of financial literacy along with significant demographic determinants.

Taken together, these studies indicate that financial knowledge and literacy can be relevant to financial decision-making, while also showing that awareness, knowledge and actual investment behaviour should not automatically be treated as the same construct. The existing studies also vary considerably in their populations and measurement approaches. The present study therefore focuses specifically on salaried individuals in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad and examines self-reported investment awareness alongside saving behaviour, investment participation, information sources, financial goals and perceived risk–return understanding.

2.1 Research gap, objectives and hypotheses

Three gaps motivate the study. First, established research mostly uses validated or multidimensional literacy measures, while small field surveys often rely on self-reported awareness plus separate behavioural questions. Second, local working populations may have information environments that differ from national samples. Third, saving regularly and actually investing are related but different behaviours. We address these points with a sample of 96 salaried respondents in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad.

The study has seven objectives:

•        to assess self-reported investment awareness among the surveyed salaried respondents;

•        to identify recognised investment avenues and sources of investment information;

•        to examine budgeting, saving regularity and the reported share of salary saved or invested;

•        to describe current investment participation, financial goals, preferred options and investment horizon;

•        to examine self-reported understanding of the risk–return relationship;

•        to identify the investment-related challenges most often reported; and

•        to explore associations between respondent characteristics and current investment participation without making causal claims.

For the exploratory tests, the null hypotheses are that current investment participation is independent of (H01) salary group, (H02) self-reported awareness and (H03) risk–return understanding. Each alternative hypothesis states that an association exists.

3. Methodology

Table 1: Summary of the research design.

We circulated the questionnaire as a Google Form. We shared the form to our colleagues which are salaried employees and also to working people via WhatsApp groups and personal contacts. We requested them to share the form of other salaried employees they might know. Beforehand, we would confirm if the person who filled the form is indeed working and receiving a regular salary. All 96 valid respondents were classified as salaried. The form mixed single-response and multiple-response items. For multiple-response items each selected option was counted separately, so percentages show the share of respondents choosing an option and do not add up to 100%. Two minor standardisation steps were applied: one age entry was recoded to "25–35 years" and one duplicated investment-horizon entry was recoded to "1–3 years". No response was removed on the basis of its content.

For this study, "investment" includes any avenue listed in the questionnaire (for example fixed deposits, gold, mutual funds, stocks, real estate and PPF). A respondent is a "current investor" if they answered "Yes, regularly" or "Yes, occasionally". Awareness and risk–return understanding are self-assessed, so they capture perceived rather than objective knowledge. Percentages are calculated on N = 96 and rounded to one decimal place.

4. Results

4.1 Respondent profile

Table 2: Age distribution (N = 96).

Table 3: Monthly salary distribution (N = 96).

The sample is young. Forty-five respondents (46.9%) were below 25 and 23 (24.0%) were aged 25–35, together 70.8% of the sample. The largest salary band was ₹20,001–40,000 (31.3%). Six respondents earned above ₹1,00,000 and seven preferred not to disclose their salary.

4.2 Awareness, information sources and risk–return understanding

Table 4: Self-reported investment awareness (N = 96).

Table 5: Investment avenues known (multiple responses permitted).

Table 6: Sources of investment information (multiple responses permitted).

Table 7: Self-reported understanding of the risk–return relationship (N = 96).

Ninety-four respondents reported at least some awareness, but only 29 (30.2%) chose the strongest category. Fixed deposits were the most recognised avenue, followed by gold and mutual funds. Friends or family and social media were the most frequently selected information sources; these answers show where respondents look for information, not how accurate that information is. Forty-four respondents (45.8%) said they clearly understood the risk–return relationship, while the other 52 chose somewhat, not much or not at all. Since this item is a self-assessment, it reflects perceived understanding and not a tested one.

4.3 Budgeting, saving and investment participation

Table 8: Monthly budgeting behaviour (N = 96).

Table 9: Saving regularity (N = 96).

Table 10: Approximate share of salary saved or invested (N = 96).

Table 11: Current investment participation (N = 96).

Saving was more common than investing. Thirty-nine respondents (40.6%) saved every month, compared with 25 (26.0%) who invested regularly. Combining regular and occasional investors gives 53 respondents (55.2%), and a further 28 (29.2%) planned to invest but had not yet started. This gap between intention and participation is descriptive; the survey cannot show what holds those respondents back.

4.4 Goals, preferred options and investment horizon

Table 12: Primary financial goal (N = 96).

Table 13: First-considered or preferred investment option (N = 96).

Table 14: Investment challenges (multiple responses permitted).

Table 15: Preferred investment horizon (N = 96).

Buying a house or property was the most common goal (29.2%), followed by wealth creation (20.8%) and children's education (19.8%). Gold was the option respondents considered first (25.0%), ahead of stocks or shares (20.8%). The most common horizon was 1–3 years (35.4%), and only 14 respondents (14.6%) preferred more than five years. Fear of losing money was the most frequently reported challenge (36.5%). Note that the horizon question asked for a preferred horizon, so some respondents who had never invested still answered it; only five chose "I don't currently invest".

5. Exploratory Association Analysis

We tested whether current investment participation (regular or occasional investor versus not) was associated with salary, awareness and risk–return understanding. Salary was collapsed into four groups, awareness into lower versus higher self-reported awareness [higher awareness: very aware / somewhat aware () vs. lower awareness: slightly aware / not aware ()], and risk–return understanding into limited versus at-least-some understanding [limited: not much + not at all () vs. at-least-some: clearly + somewhat ()]. The salary test used [; the 7 "prefer not to say" responses were excluded].

Table 16: Chi-square tests of current investment participation.

Table 17: Salary group × current investment participation ()

(Excluding 7 "prefer not to say" responses)

Table 18: Awareness group × current investment participation ()

Table 19: Risk–return understanding × current investment participation ()

Expected cell counts were checked for all three cross-tabulations and stayed above 5 in every cell, so standard chi-square test conditions were met and Fisher's exact test wasn't needed.

None of the three tests reached significance at the 5% level (p = 0.466, 0.330 and 0.120), so we do not reject H01, H02 or H03. The Cramér's V values (0.10 to 0.16) indicate weak associations at most. With only 96 respondents, these tests can detect only fairly large differences, so the result should be read as "no association detected in this sample" and not as evidence that none exists among salaried workers more broadly.

6. Discussion

The main pattern in the data is a stepped one: knowing about investments, saving, and actually investing are three different things. Ninety-four of 96 respondents reported at least some awareness, 39 saved every month, and 53 were investing. This fits the literature's caution that financial knowledge and financial behaviour are related but distinct.[13]

Where respondents get their information is the second notable result. Friends or family (45.8%) and social media (42.7%) were chosen far more often than banks or financial advisers (22.9%). We did not test the accuracy of these channels, so the finding says where respondents look, not whether they are well served.

Third, respondents leaned toward familiar, traditional assets. Fixed deposits and gold were the best-known avenues, gold was the most common first choice, and buying property was the leading goal. Arora and Chakraborty[14] likewise found that literacy influences choices in traditional assets such as gold and property in India. Our design cannot test that link, but the parallel is worth following up. Relatedly, most respondents preferred short or uncertain horizons: only 14.6% chose more than five years, even though 20.8% named wealth creation as their main goal.

Finally, fear of losing money was the top challenge (36.5%), followed by difficulty choosing investments and lack of knowledge. This matches the literature's emphasis on risk understanding, though we cannot say whether these worries cause non-participation. The absence of significant associations with salary, awareness or risk–return understanding suggests that simple self-reported measures may not separate investors from non-investors in a sample like this. Age, which skews young here, is a variable a larger study should examine.

7. Practical Implications

•        Financial education for employees can focus on the practical differences between risk, return, liquidity, diversification and time horizon, not just product names (Tables 5 and 7).

•        Since friends, family and social media were the leading sources (Table 6), workshops can teach people to check claims and spot misleading or incomplete financial content.

•        The gap between monthly saving and regular investing (Tables 9 and 11) points to goal-based planning: link each goal to a horizon, liquidity need and risk capacity before choosing a product.

•        With fear of loss the top challenge (Table 14), explaining volatility and downside risk is likely to help more than return-focused messaging.

•        Future studies should use larger, probability-based samples and validated financial-literacy instruments to see whether these patterns hold.

8. Limitations

•        The 96 respondents were chosen by convenience and purposive sampling, so they do not represent all salaried individuals in Pune or Pimpri-Chinchwad. Almost half are under 25.

•        Most measures are self-reported and may be affected by recall or social-desirability bias.

•        Awareness and risk–return understanding were self-assessed, not measured with a validated objective scale.

•        The cross-sectional design does not support causal conclusions.

•        The questionnaire did not collect portfolio-level data, so asset allocation and performance cannot be assessed.

•        The sample is small, which limits the power of the chi-square tests, and collapsing categories loses detail. Seven respondents did not disclose their salary.

9. Conclusion

This study gives a bounded, descriptive account of investment awareness and related financial behaviour among 96 salaried respondents in Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad in September 2026. Fixed deposits, gold and mutual funds were the best-known avenues, and friends, family and social media were the main information sources. Saving was more common than regular investing, 53 respondents were current investors, gold and stocks were the most common first choices, and fear of losing money was the most frequently reported challenge.

Awareness should not be treated as the same thing as financial literacy or investment participation. We measured self-reported awareness in a non-probability sample, and the exploratory tests found no significant association at the 5% level between current investment participation and salary, awareness or risk–return understanding. The results describe these respondents; they are a starting point for larger and more rigorous work in the region.

Declarations

Data availability. The analysis uses the authors' primary survey data (96 valid responses, Google Form, September 2026). The dataset is not publicly deposited; aggregated counts are reported in the tables.

Ethics. Participation was voluntary and anonymous, and respondents were told their answers would be used for academic purposes only. No account credentials or transaction details were requested. The study did not undergo formal institutional ethics review. The study was conducted under the supervision and approval of faculty guide Dr. Sonali Bhujbal.

Author contributions. All authors contributed equally to questionnaire design, data collection, statistical analysis, interpretation, and drafting of the paper, and all authors approved the final version.

Use of generative AI. Generative AI tools were used solely for language editing and manuscript formatting. The authors reviewed and verified all content and assume full responsibility for the manuscript.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no financial conflict of interest in relation to this study.

Acknowledgement

The authors sincerely thank Dr. Sonali Bhujbal for her valuable guidance and support throughout this research, as well as all survey respondents for their time and contribution.

Appendix A. Survey Instrument Summary

The questionnaire had 16 questions covering eligibility, respondent profile, investment awareness, recognised investment avenues, information sources, risk–return understanding, budgeting, saving regularity, share of salary saved or invested, current investment participation, financial goals, preferred investment option, investment challenges and preferred investment horizon. Multiple-response questions were analysed by counting each selected option separately.

Appendix B. QUESTIONNAIRE

1. Are you currently a salaried individual?

2. What is your age group?

3. What is your monthly salary range?

4. How aware are you of different investment options available in India?

5. Which investment options are you aware of?

6. What is your main source of investment information?

7. Do you understand the relationship between investment risk and return?

8. Do you prepare a monthly budget for your income and expenses?

9. How regularly do you save a portion of your monthly salary?

10. Approximately what percentage of your monthly salary do you save or invest?

11. Do you currently invest in any financial or physical investment options?

12. What is your primary financial goal?

13. Which investment option do you currently prefer the most, or would consider first?

14. What is the biggest challenge you face while investing?

15. What is your preferred investment time period?

Endnotes