亲爱的研友该休息了!由于当前在线用户较少,发布求助请尽量完整地填写文献信息,科研通机器人24小时在线,伴您度过漫漫科研夜!身体可是革命的本钱,早点休息,好梦!

Do Investors Rely on Robots? Evidence from an Experimental Study

机器人 业务 计算机科学 计量经济学 经济 人工智能
作者
Barbara Alemanni,Andrej Angelovski,Daniela Di Cagno,Arianna Galliera,Nadia Linciano,Francesca Marazzi,Paola Soccorso
出处
期刊:Social Science Research Network [RELX Group (Netherlands)]
被引量:5
标识
DOI:10.2139/ssrn.3697232
摘要

Robo advice has moved its first steps in the Anglo-Saxon countries and is now rapidly gaining market share at a global level. The phenomenon fueled a growing and still not conclusive institutional debate about potential benefits and risks to financial consumers, based also on investors’ biases and behaviours that online platforms could trigger to the detriment of robo advisees. The present paper provides some insights into attitudes and behaviours that might prevail in a digital environment among young investors, representing the category of users potentially more involved by the development of the automated advice. In detail, the study investigates whether individuals’ propensity to follow the recommendation received from an advisor changes depending on whether the advisor is a human or a robot. The analysis is based on data collected through an ad hoc developed laboratory experiment run in the Cesare Lab of LUISS University with a sample of 180 students. Students were given an initial monetary endowment and were asked to choose between six different portfolios of financial activities; after being profiled through a questionnaire aimed at eliciting their risk tolerance (Grable and Lytton’s Risk Tolerance Quiz; 2003), they received the advice, either from a human advisor or from a robo advisor (i.e. via a computer platform) depending on the treatment they had randomly assigned before entering the experimental session. Then, they were asked again to choose among the six portfolios in order to capture whether the propensity to follow the recommendation depends on its source (human versus robo). Finally, participants were asked to answer several questions eliciting risk preferences, financial literacy (actual and perceived) and digital literacy, serving as control variables when modelling the probability to follow the advice.Our results show that the probability to follow the advice does not depend on the source of the recommendation but rather on the alignment between the self-directed choice made before receiving the advice and the recommendation subsequently received: the propensity to follow the advisor (either human or robo) increases if the advice confirms individual’s own beliefs about her/his investor profile. This result might be explained by referring to individuals’ attitude towards the so called ‘confirmation bias’. However, when the self-directed choice differs from the recommendation received, participants may be more likely to follow the advice given by a human advisor and less likely to follow the advice formulated by an algorithm. Also the gender of the advisor seems to matter: women tend to follow the advice provided by a female advisor more frequently compared to the case of the recommendation given by a male advisor. This work is part of a wider research on FinTech that CONSOB started in 2016, in collaboration with several Italian universities, with the aim of exploring opportunities and risks for investor protection and the financial system as a whole, related to the application of technological innovation to the provision of financial services. In particular, supplementing Lener, Linciano and Soccorso (2019, edited by) and Caratelli et al. (2019), this document widens the field of investigation by referring to a specific target of the population - the so called millennials and post-millennials – and using complementary and innovative methods. According to an evidence-based approach, insights from the present study may suggest specific investor protection initiatives, also in terms of financial education activities designed for a clearly-identified segment of the population (the so called millennials and post-millennials, in this case).Evidence from the present work might be extended further with respect to the consumers’ perception of the fairness of algorithms used to provide financial services, the cognitive heuristics and biases underlying decision making process and investments in the digital environment and nudges which may be used to enhance investor protection.

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
科研通是完全免费的文献互助平台,具备全网最快的应助速度,最高的求助完成率。 对每一个文献求助,科研通都将尽心尽力,给求助人一个满意的交代。
实时播报
乐观水儿完成签到 ,获得积分10
6秒前
机智笑南完成签到,获得积分10
10秒前
研友_LMo56Z完成签到,获得积分10
16秒前
桐桐应助空想家采纳,获得10
16秒前
Lucas应助空想家采纳,获得10
16秒前
情怀应助空想家采纳,获得10
17秒前
22秒前
bkagyin应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
22秒前
33秒前
琪琪发布了新的文献求助10
41秒前
寻雯静应助美丽元风采纳,获得10
47秒前
香蕉觅云应助NattyPoe采纳,获得10
51秒前
52秒前
gbb发布了新的文献求助10
58秒前
留柿完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
李安全完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
今后应助琪琪采纳,获得10
1分钟前
思源应助优雅柏柳采纳,获得10
1分钟前
NI完成签到 ,获得积分10
1分钟前
ZanE完成签到,获得积分10
1分钟前
2分钟前
负责代珊发布了新的文献求助10
2分钟前
CipherSage应助gbb采纳,获得10
2分钟前
回来完成签到,获得积分10
2分钟前
香蕉觅云应助内向晓旋采纳,获得10
2分钟前
李健应助连敏锐采纳,获得10
2分钟前
坚定的半梦完成签到 ,获得积分10
2分钟前
2分钟前
丘比特应助负责代珊采纳,获得10
2分钟前
连敏锐发布了新的文献求助10
2分钟前
丘比特应助冷酷无情的NK采纳,获得10
2分钟前
2分钟前
NattyPoe发布了新的文献求助10
3分钟前
唠叨的乞完成签到 ,获得积分10
3分钟前
3分钟前
小何完成签到,获得积分10
3分钟前
3分钟前
3分钟前
gbb发布了新的文献求助10
3分钟前
海豚发布了新的文献求助10
3分钟前
高分求助中
Markov Chain Monte Carlo 10000
(应助此贴封号)【重要!!请各用户(尤其是新用户)详细阅读】【科研通的精品贴汇总】 10000
Common Foundations of American and East Asian Modernisation: From Alexander Hamilton to Junichero Koizumi 1000
Weaponeering: An Introduction Fourth Edition, Volume 1 1000
Advanced Weaponeering Fourth Edition, Volume 2 1000
悉尼大学博士学位论文,题目:Modelling and testing of one-sided stitched laminated composites. 作者:Kristopher P. Plain 700
Matrix Methods in Data Mining and Pattern Recognition Second Edition 610
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 纳米技术 工程类 有机化学 化学工程 生物化学 计算机科学 内科学 物理 复合材料 催化作用 细胞生物学 无机化学 光电子学 物理化学 电极 基因
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 7505079
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9094511
关于积分的说明 19404982
捐赠科研通 7113115
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3251642
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2420834
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2237640