Enhancing Financial Advisory Services with GenAI: Consumer Perceptions and Attitudes Through Service-Dominant Logic and Artificial Intelligence Device Use Acceptance Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Financial institutions are currently undergoing a significant shift from traditional robo-advisors to more advanced generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) technologies. This transformation has motivated us to investigate the factors influencing consumer responses to GenAI-driven financial advice. Despite extensive research on the adoption of robo-advisors, there is a gap in our understanding of the specific contributors to, and differences in, consumer attitudes and reactions to GenAI-based financial guidance. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the impact of personalized investment suggestions, human-like empathy, and the continuous improvement of GenAI-provided financial advice on its authenticity as perceived by consumers, their utilitarian attitude toward the use of GenAI for financial advice, and their reactions to GenAI-generated financial suggestions. A comprehensive research model was developed based on service-dominant logic (SDL) and Artificial Intelligence Device Use Acceptance (AIDUA) frameworks. The model was subsequently employed in a structural equation modeling (SEM) analysis of survey data from 822 mobile banking users. The findings indicate that personalized investment suggestions, human-like empathy, and the continuous improvement of GenAI’s recommendations positively influence consumers’ perception of its authenticity. Moreover, we discovered a positive correlation between utilitarian attitudes and perceived authenticity, which ultimately influences consumers’ responses to GenAI’s financial advisory solutions. This is manifested as either a willingness to engage or resistance to communication. This study contributes to the research on GenAI-powered financial services and underscores the significance of integrating GenAI financial guidance into the routine operations of financial institutions. Our work builds upon previous research on robo-advisors, offering practical insights for financial institutions seeking to leverage GenAI-driven technologies to enhance their services and customer experiences.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".