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 [Social Science Electronic Publishing]
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.
最长约 10秒,即可获得该文献文件

科研通智能强力驱动
Strongly Powered by AbleSci AI
更新
PDF的下载单位、IP信息已删除 (2025-6-4)

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
刚刚
刚刚
刚刚
刚刚
123完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
神明发布了新的文献求助10
2秒前
大模型应助谦让代芙采纳,获得10
2秒前
NexusExplorer应助JarryChao采纳,获得10
3秒前
3秒前
TIMEIEXIST完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
BBIBBI完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
花筱一完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
3秒前
shea发布了新的文献求助10
4秒前
Yuan完成签到 ,获得积分10
4秒前
ACE发布了新的文献求助30
4秒前
K神发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
星辰大海应助ark861023采纳,获得10
5秒前
灰色发布了新的文献求助10
5秒前
hi发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
华仔应助111111采纳,获得10
7秒前
7秒前
Mary给Mary的求助进行了留言
7秒前
如意的易真完成签到 ,获得积分10
8秒前
9秒前
HanZhang发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
nines完成签到 ,获得积分10
9秒前
共享精神应助神明采纳,获得10
10秒前
领导范儿应助Sherlock采纳,获得30
10秒前
11秒前
小马甲应助雷寒云采纳,获得10
11秒前
11秒前
MSYzack发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
12秒前
zj发布了新的文献求助10
12秒前
感动山灵完成签到,获得积分10
13秒前
14秒前
14秒前
14秒前
高分求助中
(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
Fermented Coffee Market 2000
Constitutional and Administrative Law 500
PARLOC2001: The update of loss containment data for offshore pipelines 500
Critical Thinking: Tools for Taking Charge of Your Learning and Your Life 4th Edition 500
Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice 300
Atlas of Anatomy (Fifth Edition) 300
热门求助领域 (近24小时)
化学 材料科学 医学 生物 工程类 有机化学 生物化学 物理 纳米技术 计算机科学 内科学 化学工程 复合材料 物理化学 基因 遗传学 催化作用 冶金 量子力学 光电子学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 5286781
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 4439406
关于积分的说明 13821497
捐赠科研通 4321398
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2371854
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1367418
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1330879