New IJF now accepts submissions exclusively via the Editorial Scholar portal — a dedicated submission & review system.
Go to Editorial Scholar →
Associated Management Consultants Pvt. Ltd. | COPE Member
Scopus Q2 UGC-CARE |
Indian Journal of Finance logo

Indian Journal of Finance

ISSN: 0973-8711 Frequency: Monthly Peer Review: Double-blind Published since: 2007 Language: English
A publication of AMCPL
amcon.co.in
New Delhi, India
Indexed in: Scopus Q2 UGC-CARE Group II Google Scholar J-Gate NISCAIR Crossref

Original Article

Subscription Original Article

From Algorithms to Action : The Role of Trust and Engagement in Adopting Robo-Advisors

Lingam Naveen1,  Shahni Singh2,  Prasant Kumar Rout3

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, Biju Patnaik Institute of Information Technology & Management Studies (BIITM), Plot No - F/4, Patia, Bhubaneswar - 751 024, Odisha.

2 Assistant Professor , Department of Finance, Biju Patnaik Institute of Information Technology & Management Studies (BIITM), Plot No - F/4, Patia, Bhubaneswar - 751 024, Odisha.

3 Assistant Professor, Sri Sri University, Cuttack, Odisha.

Volume 20
Issue 3
Pages 39–59
Year 2026
Received: Aug. 25, 2025 Accepted: March 10, 2026 Published: March 15, 2026
Abstract

Purpose: The growing adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in the financial services sector has led to the emergence of robo-advisory platforms that offer automated investment advice. This study examined the factors affecting users’ intention to invest in AI-based platforms. Design/

Methodology: The study was based on the technology acceptance model (TAM), as well as behavioral finance and consumer psychology concepts, making it concentrate on five variables, namely: Perceived Algorithmic Accuracy (PAA), Cognitive Absorption (CA), Emotional Trust (ET), Perceived Value Co-Creation (PVC), and Artificial Intelligence Usage (AIU). Emotional trust was used as a mediator, and AI Usage as a moderator. The survey was conducted through online questionnaires on 445 active financial investors. PLS-SEM was used to analyze the responses.

Findings: The results indicated that PAA, CA, ET, and PVC significantly influenced investment intention. It was established that ET partially mediated the relationship between PAA and investment intention. Furthermore, AIU exerted a strong mediating effect on CA on investment intention, but this mediation was not notable in ET and PVC. These findings indicated that emotional and cognitive involvement, as well as trust in the use of algorithms, were significant factors in user behavior. Practical

Implications: The research provided first-hand insights into how financial technology providers could improve trust, user engagement, and platform engineering. Originality/

Value: This study integrated technical, psychological, and participatory elements into a single model of robo-advisor adoption, with emotional trust and cognitive absorption as key determinants of investment intention.

Keywords robo-advisory artificial intelligence (AI) investment intention perceived algorithmic accuracy emotional trust cognitive absorption
How to Cite

Lingam Naveen, Shahni Singh, Prasant Kumar Rout (2026). From Algorithms to Action : The Role of Trust and Engagement in Adopting Robo-Advisors. Indian Journal of Finance, 20(3), 39–59. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2026/v20i3/175428

References
  1. Agarwal, R., & Karahanna, E. (2000). Time flies when you're having fun: Cognitive absorption and beliefs about information technology usage. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 665–694. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250951
  2. Annapurna, R., & Basri, S. (2024). Role of emotions in stock investment decisions: A critical review of the literature. Indian Journal of Finance, 18(5), 50–65. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2024/v18i5/173842
  3. Bahari, S., Al Zarliani, W. O., Suriadi, & Hasddin. (2025). Examining the role of financial literacy, cognitive bias, and emotional bias in shaping investment decisions: A study on the Indonesian Stock Exchange. Indian Journal of Finance, 19(11), 65–81. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2025/v19i11/175842
  4. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173
  5. Benbasat, I., & Wang, W. (2005). trust in and adoption of online recommendation agents. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 6(3), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00065
  6. Black, F., & Scholes, M. (1973). The pricing of options and corporate liabilities. Journal of Political Economy, 81(3), 637–654. https://doi.org/10.1086/260062
  7. Chen, Y.-H., & Barnes, S. (2007). Initial trust and online buyer behaviour. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 107(1), 21–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/02635570710719034
  8. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow. The psychology of optimal experience. Harper and Row. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2313227
  9. D'Acunto, F., Prabhala, N., & Rossi, A. G. (2019). The promises and pitfalls of robo-advising. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1983–2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz014
  10. Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
  11. Davis, F. D., & Venkatesh, V. (1996). A critical assessment of potential measurement biases in the technology acceptance model: Three experiments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45(1), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1006/ijhc.1996.0040
  12. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: A comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982–1003. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.35.8.982
  13. Etikan, I., Musa, S. A., & Alkassim, R. S. (2015). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics, 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11
  14. Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (1992). A primer for soft modeling. University of Akron Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1992-98610-000
  15. Fares, O. H., Butt, I., & Lee, S. H. (2023). Utilization of artificial intelligence in the banking sector: A systematic literature review. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 28, 835–852. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-022-00176-7
  16. Fatima, S., & Chakraborty, M. (2024). Adoption of artificial intelligence in financial services: The case of robo-advisors in India. IIMB Management Review, 36(2), 113–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iimb.2024.04.002
  17. Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  18. Fortune Business Insights. (2026). Robo advisory market size, share & industry analysis. https://www.fortunebusinessinsights.com/robo-advisory-market-109986
  19. Gefen, D., Karahanna, E., & Straub, D. W. (2003). Trust and TAM in online shopping: An integrated model. MIS Quarterly, 27(1), 51–90. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036519
  20. Gupta, N., Rana, R., & Tandon, D. (2025). Financial literacy as a moderator in behavioral biases and investor decisions. Indian Journal of Finance, 19(5), 79–94. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2025/v19i5/175045
  21. Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2021). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  22. Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
  23. Jain, R., Pal, A., Gupta, K., & Gaur, D. (2026). Artificial intelligence in finance: The journey of robo advisors so far and the way ahead. Indian Journal of Finance, 20(1), 47–71. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2026/v20i1/174132
  24. Jung, D., Dorner, V., Glaser, F., & Morana, S. (2018). Robo-advisory: Digitalization and automation of financial advisory. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60, 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-018-0521-9
  25. Jung, D., Glaser, F., & Köpplin, W. (2019). Robo-advisory: Opportunities and risks for the future of financial advisory. In V. Nissen (ed.), Advances in consulting research: Recent findings and practical cases (pp. 405–427). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95999-3_20
  26. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3(3), 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3
  27. Kock, N. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
  28. Kumar, I. (2025). Evolution of financial advisory market with the advent of robo-advisors. Managerial Finance, 51(5), 831–856. https://doi.org/10.1108/mf-03-2024-0240
  29. Lee, M. K. (2018). Understanding perception of algorithmic decisions: Fairness, trust, and emotion in response to algorithmic management. Big Data & Society, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951718756684
  30. Lim, K. L., Soutar, G. N., & Lee, J. A. (2013). Factors affecting investment intentions: A consumer behaviour perspective. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 18(4), 301–315. https://doi.org/10.1057/fsm.2013.23
  31. Linge, A. A., Kakde, B. B., & Jiwani, A. (2025). Factors affecting financial literacy and financial behavior of working young adults in India. Indian Journal of Finance, 19(11), 41–64. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2025/v19i11/174049
  32. Logg, J. M., Minson, J. A., & Moore, D. A. (2019). Algorithm appreciation: People prefer algorithmic to human judgment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 151, 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.12.005
  33. Longoni, C., Bonezzi, A., & Morewedge, C. K. (2019). Resistance to medical artificial intelligence. Journal of Consumer Research, 46(4), 629–650. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcr/ucz013
  34. Lusch, R. R., & Vargo, S. L. (2014). Service-dominant logic: Premises, perspectives, possibilities. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139043120
  35. Markowitz, H. (1952). The utility of wealth. Journal of Political Economy, 60(2), 151–158. https://doi.org/10.1086/257177
  36. McKnight, D. H., Choudhury, V., & Kacmar, C. (2002). Developing and validating trust measures for e-commerce: An integrative typology. Information Systems Research, 13(3), 334–359. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.13.3.334.81
  37. Modigliani, F., & Miller, M. H. (1958). The cost of capital, corporation finance and the theory of investment. American Economic Review, 48(3), 261–297. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1680688
  38. Mohapatra, A. K., Sahoo, A. P., Tripathy, P., Matta, R., & Saxena, A. (2026). Adoption of explainable artificial intelligence in retail investors' decision-making: Evidence from India. Indian Journal of Finance, 20(1), 24–37. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2026/v20i1/175903
  39. Morandín-Ahuerma, F. (2022). What is artificial intelligence? International Journal of Research Publications and Reviews, 3(12), 1947–1951. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.2022.31261
  40. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=1017362
  41. Parasuraman, A., Zeithaml, V. A., & Berry, L. L. (1988). SERVQUAL: A multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. Journal of Retailing, 64(1), 12–40. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1989-10632-001
  42. Pavlou, P. A., & Fygenson, M. (2006). Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: An extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Quarterly, 30(1), 115–143. https://doi.org/10.2307/25148720
  43. Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015
  44. Rempel, J. K., Holmes, J. G., & Zanna, M. P. (1985). Trust in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.95
  45. Ringle, C. M., Wende, S., & Becker, J. M. (2015). SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH, Boenningstedt. http://www.smartpls.com
  46. Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. American Psychologist, 26(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031464
  47. Saadé, R., & Bahli, B. (2005). The impact of cognitive absorption on perceived usefulness and perceived ease of use in online learning: An extension of the technology acceptance model. Information & Management, 42(2), 317–327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2003.12.013
  48. Sabharwal, C. L., & Anjum, B. (2018). Robo-revolution in the financial sector. In 2018 International Conference on Computational Science and Computational Intelligence (CSCI) (pp. 1289–1292). IEEE Xplore. https://doi.org/10.1109/CSCI46756.2018.00249
  49. Sauermann, H., & Roach, M. (2013). Increasing web survey response rates in innovation research: An experimental study of static and dynamic contact design features. Research Policy, 42(1), 273–286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.05.003
  50. Seeber, I., Bittner, E., Briggs, R. O., de Vreede, T., de Vreede, G.-J., Elkins, A., Maier, R., Merz, A. B., Oeste-Reiß, S., Randrup, N., Schwabe, G., & Söllner, M. (2020). Machines as teammates: A research agenda on AI in team collaboration. Information & Management, 57(2), Article ID 103174. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103174
  51. Shin, D. (2020). User perceptions of algorithmic decisions in the personalized AI system: Perceptual evaluation of fairness, accountability, transparency, and explainability. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 64(4), 541–565. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838151.2020.1839626
  52. Singla, A., Sukharevsky, A., Hall, B., Yee, L., & Chui, M. (2025). The state of AI in 2025: Agents, innovation, and transformation. McKinsey & Company. https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/quantumblack/our-insights/the-state-of-ai
  53. Sodhi, S. K., Bansal, S., & Saxena, U. (2025). Artificial intelligence in healthcare: Market dynamics, ethical imperatives, and managerial foresight. Prabandhan: Indian Journal of Management, 18(9), 79–84. https://doi.org/10.17010/pijom/2025/v18i9/174845
  54. Sunil, N., & Sathish, K. B. (2025). Financial literacy and fintech: A double-edged sword for millennial investors' behavioral biases. Indian Journal of Finance, 19(3), 44–63. https://doi.org/10.17010/ijf/2025/v19i3/174849
  55. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the multidimensional personality questionnaire (pp. 1031–1010). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2155748
  56. Tellegen, A., & Atkinson, G. (1974). Openness to absorbing and self-altering experiences (“absorption”), a trait related to hypnotic susceptibility. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 83(3), 268–277. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036681
  57. Thaler, R. H. (1999). Mental accounting matters. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 12(3), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0771(199909)12:3%3C183::AID-BDM318%3E3.0.CO;2-F
  58. Uhl, M. W., & Rohner, P. (2018). Robo-advisors versus traditional investment advisors: An unequal game. The Journal of Wealth Management, 21(1), 44–50. https://doi.org/10.3905/jwm.2018.21.1.044
  59. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 271–360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2
  60. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., & Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
  61. Wang, C., Medaglia, R., & Jensen, T. B. (2020). When ambiguity rules: The emergence of adaptive governance from (in)congruent frames of knowledge sharing technology. Information Systems Frontiers, 23, 1573–1591. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-020-10050-3
  62. Webster, J., & Ho, H. (1997). Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. In ACM SIGMIS database: The DATABASE for advances in information systems, 28(2), 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1145/264701.264706
  63. Wong, K. K. (2013). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) techniques using SmartPLS. Marketing Bulletin, 24(1), 1–32. https://www.scirp.org/reference/referencespapers?referenceid=2371883
  64. Yeomans, M., Shah, A., Mullainathan, S., & Kleinberg, J. (2019). Making sense of recommendations. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 32(4), 403–414. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.2118
  65. Yi, Y., & Gong, T. (2013). Customer value co-creation behavior: Scale development and validation. Journal of Business Research, 66(9), 1279–1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2012.02.026
  66. Zhao, X., Lynch Jr., J. G., & Chen, Q. (2010). Reconsidering Baron and Kenny: Myths and truths about mediation analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(2), 197–206. https://doi.org/10.1086/651257
Editorial Scholar

Submit your Research to IJF

Submit your Manuscript → Author Guidelines