An Empirical Study of <scp>AI</scp> Financial Advisor Adoption Through Technology Vulnerabilities in the Financial Context
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Financial institutions are increasingly employing artificial intelligence (AI) solutions to optimize their financial advice and services for consumers. However, consumers have demonstrated reluctance toward adopting AI technology goods, and the intermediary psychological mechanism of adoption intention in the financial service context is unclear. Using the theoretical lens of technology affordances and constraints, this article proposes the concept of consumer technology vulnerability (CTV) as the mediating mechanism in the affordance–adoption process of AI financial advisors (AFAs). Meanwhile, consumer innovativeness and self‐efficacy are investigated as individual traits that moderate perceptions and psychological impacts of AI affordances. Specifically, the study first conceptualizes AI affordances in a product innovation context by reviewing the burgeoning literature on AI to date. This is followed by a US‐based survey ( N = 616), which shows the positive indirect effects of information optimization, customizability, and human‐likeness on AFA adoption intention through CTV. Self‐efficacy and consumer innovativeness are found to enhance the positive effects of AI affordances on AFA adoption intention through CTV but diminish the impact of human‐likeness on CTV. These findings highlight, for the first time, the mediating role of CTV in new technology adoption. This will help technology innovators and financial institutions to identify how consumers perceive and adopt different AI affordances, and therefore to better incorporate AI characteristics into financial product innovations.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".