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.

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
余儿发布了新的文献求助10
刚刚
刚刚
刚刚
大个应助WQ采纳,获得10
1秒前
逸神应助jiang采纳,获得10
1秒前
1秒前
1秒前
夜风完成签到,获得积分10
1秒前
sdbz001完成签到,获得积分0
2秒前
2秒前
2秒前
自信绾绾完成签到,获得积分20
2秒前
了解发布了新的文献求助10
3秒前
清爽的乐曲完成签到,获得积分10
3秒前
3秒前
好好好完成签到,获得积分20
3秒前
CC完成签到 ,获得积分10
3秒前
4秒前
汤圆完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
CipherSage应助小毕可乐采纳,获得10
4秒前
zimu8473完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
Orange应助NING采纳,获得10
4秒前
4秒前
5秒前
孙同学完成签到 ,获得积分10
5秒前
5秒前
科研通AI2S应助稳重诗珊采纳,获得10
5秒前
淡定的勒完成签到,获得积分10
6秒前
6秒前
夏律发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
KKK发布了新的文献求助10
6秒前
英姑应助ohh采纳,获得10
7秒前
Lucas应助坦率的从菡采纳,获得10
7秒前
稀尔发布了新的文献求助30
7秒前
无奈的曼青完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
liushikai应助兴奋觅夏采纳,获得20
7秒前
舒适可乐完成签到,获得积分10
7秒前
7秒前
田様应助winiwn采纳,获得10
8秒前
8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
Inorganic Chemistry Eighth Edition 1200
Free parameter models in liquid scintillation counting 1000
Anionic polymerization of acenaphthylene: identification of impurity species formed as by-products 1000
Standards for Molecular Testing for Red Cell, Platelet, and Neutrophil Antigens, 7th edition 1000
HANDBOOK OF CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 106th edition 1000
ASPEN Adult Nutrition Support Core Curriculum, Fourth Edition 1000
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 物理 内科学 复合材料 催化作用 物理化学 光电子学 电极 细胞生物学 基因 无机化学
热门帖子
关注 科研通微信公众号,转发送积分 6310913
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 8127207
关于积分的说明 17029354
捐赠科研通 5368409
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 2850402
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 1828029
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 1680654