Building trust in robo-advisory: technology, firm-specific and system trust
Xue Cao et al.
What the paper says
Purpose This study sits at the intersection of financial planning and FinTech, focusing on robo-advisory, an affordable and accessible digital financial advisory service. Individuals’ lack of trust has resulted in low adoption of robo-advice. This study aims to understand the psychological process of how individuals build trust in robo-advice, helping them engage with it more effectively and access affordable financial advice. Design/methodology/approach Using a trust transfer theory framework and 15 semi-structured interviews, this study identifies the sources people rely on to build trust in robo-advice. Findings The authors highlight four themes – social influence, psychological comfort, safeguarding and compliance and personal capacity – that shape individuals’ trust in robo-advice. In addition to direct trust in robo-advice, firm-specific trust and system trust can also transfer to trust in robo-advice. This study finds that financial literacy and risk tolerance moderate individuals’ trust in robo-advice, while psychological comfort first shapes trust and then drives adoption. The findings suggest that even young, tech-savvy individuals may not fully benefit from robo-advice due to low personal capability. They also prefer a hybrid model, where combining robo-advice with traditional advisory services could offer greater benefits. Originality/value This study details the concept of trust in the robo-advice context into three dimensions: technology trust, firm-specific trust and system trust. Existing research on robo-advice lacks quantitative tests on firm-specific and systemic trust; therefore, this qualitative exploratory study offers foundational theoretical insights.
6 citations
Evidence weight
Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40
| F · citation impact | 0.44 × 0.4 = 0.18 |
| M · momentum | 0.65 × 0.15 = 0.10 |
| V · venue signal | 0.50 × 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.