Moderating the role of the perceived security and endorsement on the relationship between per-ceived risk and intention to use the artificial intelligence in financial services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advancement of banking and financial investment has led to the rapid expansion of services automation. The consistent increase of Artificial Intelligence (AI) usage in investment management implies the impending popularity of technology-based service. This study examined influencer endorsement and perceived security benefits as moderators to the relationship between perceived risk and financial AI services. Questionnaires were disseminated to 300 respondents who were customers with experience of using financial AI services in Jordan, and they were chosen through purposive sampling method. Structural equation modeling run using Smart-partial least squares (PLS 3.3.6) was employed in analyzing the data obtained from 220 completed questionnaires. The results show that perceived risk negatively affects financial AI services, while influencer endorsement and perceived security moderate the relationship between perceived risk and financial AI services. This study provides insight to companies on how to reduce perceived risk to encourage people to use business intelligence applications, as in the use of financial technology services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".