Passive vs active robo-advisors and disposition effect. Moderating role of gender and financial literacy

Nomeda Lisauskiene et al.

Baltic Journal of Economics2024https://doi.org/10.1080/1406099x.2024.2422673article
AJG 1ABDC C
Weight
0.48

What the paper says

The study examines links between automated advisory services and irrational individual investors’ behaviour based on dual-process theory. The study contributes to the literature on active vs. passive digital nudges in robo-advisors and the disposition effect. Self-reporting online experiment revealed that robo-advisors help investors to resolve cognitive dissonance, with passive robo-advisors being more efficient. We contribute by introducing and indicating the moderating role of financial literacy. Though moderating feminine gender role was not supported, the need for customized automated advisory services is highlighted. The results are important for individual welfare, as demographic shifts and evolving retirement systems transfer investment decisions to individuals.

2 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1406099x.2024.2422673

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{nomeda2024,
  title        = {{Passive vs active robo-advisors and disposition effect. Moderating role of gender and financial literacy}},
  author       = {Nomeda Lisauskiene et al.},
  journal      = {Baltic Journal of Economics},
  year         = {2024},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/1406099x.2024.2422673},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Passive vs active robo-advisors and disposition effect. Moderating role of gender and financial literacy

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.48

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.44 × 0.4 = 0.18
M · momentum0.55 × 0.15 = 0.08
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.