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
硅基生物完成签到,获得积分10
刚刚
JamesPei应助樊珩采纳,获得10
1秒前
3秒前
乐观的黎云完成签到,获得积分10
4秒前
5秒前
6秒前
wuliwang发布了新的文献求助10
9秒前
SciGPT应助樊珩采纳,获得10
9秒前
所所应助哈哈采纳,获得10
9秒前
Aric发布了新的文献求助10
10秒前
芒果Mango发布了新的文献求助10
11秒前
姜姜完成签到,获得积分10
11秒前
YCYycy完成签到,获得积分10
15秒前
dingbeicn完成签到,获得积分10
17秒前
桐桐应助樊珩采纳,获得10
17秒前
芒果Mango完成签到,获得积分10
19秒前
19秒前
脑洞疼应助樊珩采纳,获得10
23秒前
完美巧凡应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
23秒前
完美巧凡应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
23秒前
Lucas应助科研通管家采纳,获得10
23秒前
23秒前
24秒前
QQ发布了新的文献求助10
25秒前
27秒前
27秒前
乐乐应助彪壮的寡妇采纳,获得10
30秒前
wanci应助樊珩采纳,获得10
31秒前
吴志亮发布了新的文献求助10
31秒前
peachneko发布了新的文献求助10
32秒前
故意的梦琪完成签到,获得积分10
34秒前
万能图书馆应助Aric采纳,获得10
35秒前
molihuakai应助木木老师采纳,获得10
36秒前
田様应助樊珩采纳,获得10
38秒前
41秒前
富婆丹完成签到,获得积分10
48秒前
chen完成签到,获得积分10
50秒前
57秒前
木子发布了新的文献求助10
59秒前
烟花应助樊珩采纳,获得10
1分钟前
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
Weaponeering: An Introduction Fourth Edition, Volume 1 1000
Advanced Weaponeering Fourth Edition, Volume 2 1000
Evidence Summary. Injection (subcutaneous):op- timal administration 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
Curating Socialism: A Handbook of International Art Exhibitions 1947-1989 550
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 7496281
求助须知:如何正确求助?哪些是违规求助? 9087210
关于积分的说明 19382261
捐赠科研通 7107406
什么是DOI,文献DOI怎么找? 3249980
关于科研通互助平台的介绍 2419411
邀请新用户注册赠送积分活动 2235736