The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:

https://www.emerald.com/insight/1757-5818.htm

Intention to use analytical artificial Intention to use

analytical AI
intelligence (AI) in services – the
effect of technology readiness
and awareness 293
Carlos Flavi
an Received 31 October 2020
Revised 5 April 2021
Marketing and Market Research, Facultad de Economia y Empresa, 7 July 2021
Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain Accepted 23 July 2021

Alfredo P
erez-Rueda
Management, Facultad de Ciencias Sociales y del Trabajo, Universidad de Zaragoza,
Zaragoza, Spain
Daniel Belanche
Marketing and Market Research, Facultad de Economia y Empresa,
Universidad de Zaragoza, Zaragoza, Spain, and
Luis V. Casal
o
Marketing and Market Research, Facultad de Empresa y Gesti
on Pu

blica de Huesca,
Universidad de Zaragoza, Huesca, Spain

Abstract
Purpose – The automation of services is rapidly growing, led by sectors such as banking and
financial investment. The growing number of investments managed by artificial intelligence (AI)
suggests that this technology-based service will become increasingly popular. This study examines
how customers’ technology readiness and service awareness affect their intention to use analytical AI
investment services.
Design/methodology/approach – Hypotheses were tested with a data set of 404 North American-based
potential customers of robo-advisors. In addition to technology readiness dimensions, the potential customers’
characteristics were included in the framework as moderating factors (age, gender and previous experience
with financial investment services). A post-hoc analysis examined the roles of service awareness and the
financial advisor’s name (i.e., robo-advisor vs. AI-advisor).
Findings – The results indicated that customers’ technological optimism increases, and insecurity decreases,
their intention to use robo-advisors. Surprisingly, feelings of technological discomfort positively influenced
robo-advisor adoption. This interesting finding challenges previous insights into technology adoption and
value co-creation as analytical AI puts customers into a very passive role and reduces barriers to technology
adoption. The research also analyzes how consumers become aware of robo-advisors, and how this influences
their acceptance.
Originality/value – This is the first study to analyze the role of customers’ technology readiness in the
adoption of analytical AI. The authors link the findings to previous technology adoption and automated
services’ literature and provide specific managerial implications and avenues for further research.
Keywords Artificial intelligence, Technology readiness, Optimism, Innovativeness, Discomfort, Insecurity,
Awareness, Intention to use, Robot, Robo-advisor, Financial services, FinTech
Paper type Research paper

The authors wish to thank Prof. Russell Belk (York University) for his valuable suggestions about this
research project. Journal of Service Management
Vol. 33 No. 2, 2022
Funding: The authors are grateful for the financial support received from Gobierno de Arag
on pp. 293-320
(Research Group “METODO” S20_20R) and Ministerio de Ciencia, Innovaci
on y Universidades © Emerald Publishing Limited
1757-5818
(PID2019-105468RB-I00). DOI 10.1108/JOSM-10-2020-0378
JOSM 1. Introduction
33,2 Technological advances in robotics and artificial intelligence (AI) are radically changing
service provision (Belanche et al., 2020a; Lu et al., 2020; Robinson et al., 2020). Huang and Rust
(2018) predicted that automated technology will gradually replace workers in task requiring
mechanical, analytical, intuitive and even empathetic intelligence. Wirtz et al. (2018) proposed
that AI software that works autonomously and learns over time can be distinguished from
service robots depending on manifestation (virtual or physical), level of anthropomorphism
294 (from none to high) and task orientation. For companies, AI data and knowledge are likely to
become important sources of competitive advantage, based on economies of scale and scope,
leading to “winners-take-all” markets (Wirtz et al., 2018).
The banking and finance industries has become prototypical examples of the AI
technological revolution worldwide as a sector leading internal and customer-oriented
automation processes (Caron, 2019). In this regard, financial technology (FinTech) has
revolutionized the finance industry by increasing user value and firms’ revenues in the last
decade (Huang and Rust, 2021; Kumar et al., 2019; Goldstein et al., 2019).
Within the scope of AI-based financial services, this study focuses on robo-advisor agents,
that is, agents which automate or assist in managing investments by replacing human
advisory services and/or the customer’s own management, a recent innovation in the finance
industry (Goldstein et al., 2019). The assets under robo-advisor management are expected to
grow annually by 27.0%, reaching US$ 2,552bn in 2023, while the number of robo-advisor
users is expected to grow by 75.4% year-on-year until 2023 (Statista, 2019). As distinct from
most mechanical-based automation (e.g. robots), these innovative services are based on
analytical AI, which has been defined as the ability to process, and learn from, information for
problem-solving purposes (Huang and Rust, 2018). Nonetheless, the penetration rate of robo-
advisors among customers is still relatively low (Jung et al., 2018b; Belanche et al., 2020a). To
address this challenge, there is a need to better understand how to integrate AI into service
offerings. To this end, several experts in the AI adoption domain (e.g. Mende et al., 2019; van
Doorn et al., 2017; Belanche et al., 2020a) have suggested that the technology readiness index
(TRI) is a suitable framework, hitherto unexplored, in this novel context.
To address this research gap, we apply the TRI to examine the role of technology readiness in
explaining intention to use robo-advisors, prototypical examples of analytical AI services already
accessible to a wide spectrum of customers. Unlike technology acceptance models based on
customer motivations, the TRI (Parasuraman, 2000) captures consumers’ positive (i.e. optimism
and innovativeness) and negative (i.e. discomfort and insecurity) mental readiness regarding
technologies. The TRI dimensions assess crucial consumer perceptions in the financial sector,
such as their enthusiasm (optimism), perceived control (or discomfort) and service reliability (or
insecurity); these often determine the initial investment decisions that can lead to successful long-
term relational exchanges (Clark-Murphy and Soutar, 2004). The framework also categorizes
users based on their propensity to embrace technologies as it links personality and technology
use (Walczuch et al., 2007) and facilitates the design of segmentation variables (Victorino et al.,
2009). Therefore, as robo-advisors represent a disruptive technological advance, the TRI seems
particularly suited to understanding customer willingness to use AI-based services.
As a complement to this framework, we propose that customers with higher awareness of
robo-advisors may be more willing to use these innovative services. Service awareness, an
important variable in other service domains (e.g. Andersen et al., 2000; Crist et al., 2007), has
been neglected in previous research based on the assumption that customers are fully aware of
the available technologies (Venkatesh et al., 2003); however, these assumptions may be
misplaced as these innovations are just starting to penetrate the market. In addition, to increase
the practical implications of our research, we propose that renaming “robo-advisors” as
“AI-advisors”, a more accurate and sophisticated description, unrelated to robots, may increase
their acceptance by potential adopters. Finally, previous studies have found that individual
characteristics are key in explaining technology usage and proposed them as moderating Intention to use
variables (Sun and Zhang, 2006; Blut and Wang, 2019). Therefore, we include age, gender and analytical AI
previous investment experience in the model as moderating variables (Venkatesh et al., 2003).
The present study’s contribution is threefold. First, we empirically investigate the
adoption of a prototypical analytical AI service, financial robo-advisors. Most of the previous
research into automation has been conceptual in nature, and the growing number of empirical
studies in the field focus on mechanical-AI (e.g. service robots). However, analytical AI
represents a more advanced stage in the development of intelligent automation skills (Huang 295
and Rust, 2018), with distinctive features that make it ideal for service personalization and
optimal productivity (e.g. it learns from, and adapts to, data, Belanche et al., 2020b; Huang and
Rust, 2021). Due to the disruptive nature of analytical AI and its multiple social and economic
implications, there is an urgent need for more research and analysis in this fast-growing area.
Second, by drawing on the TRI framework, we assess to what extent regular customers are
ready to embrace an autonomous technology that performs analytical tasks traditionally carried
out by humans (i.e. investing customers’ money). This is the first study to apply the TRI
framework to identify if analytical AI adoption differs from the adoption of previous technological
innovations, research which has been repeatedly called for by scholars in the field (e.g. Mende
et al., 2019; van Doorn et al., 2017; Belanche et al., 2020a). In contrast to the previous new
technology adoption literature, our study revealed that technological discomfort does not harm,
instead it promotes, the adoption of robo-advisors. That is, customers who feel overwhelmed by
technology are more likely to use analytical AI as it is a simple system that requires minimal user
participation. This important finding suggests, in the case of analytical AI, there is a need to
reconsider previous theoretical technology adoption and value co-creation axioms as users may
not, in the future, play such active roles in value creation and decision-making.
Third, our research identified consumer awareness as a critical, but frequently ignored,
factor in adoption; thus, to identify how consumers become aware of robo-advisors, a post-
hoc analysis was conducted. In summary, this research advances the understanding of
customers’ decisions about the use of analytical AI services and can help managers design
better strategies for the successful introduction of these innovations.
The remainder of this work is structured as follows. First, we review the previous robo-
advisor literature. Second, we develop the research model’s hypotheses to explain customers’
intention to use analytical AI services. Third, we describe the data collection procedure and
the measurement validation. Next, we present the results of the empirical and the post-hoc
analyses. Finally, we discuss the main conclusions, the theoretical and practical implications,
the study’s limitations and further research lines.

2. Literature review
AI has been defined as “machines exhibiting facets of human intelligence” (Huang and Rust,
2018, p. 155). Previous research in the service domain has posited that customers approach
AI-related services differently to how they approach traditional services (Grewal et al., 2017).
Unlike other technologies (e.g. self-service technologies), AI-based systems operate
autonomously or with few instructions, often replacing humans (Belanche et al., 2020b; De
Keyser et al., 2019). Thus, companies must understand how to introduce AI technologies to
reduce barriers to their use by customers (Mazurek and Małagocka, 2019) to improve
management practices and product offerings (Kumar et al., 2019).

2.1 Previous robo-advisor knowledge

Robo-advisors have been defined as “digital platforms comprising interactive and intelligent
user assistance components that use information technology to guide customers through an
automated investment advisory process” (Jung et al., 2018a, p. 81). Financial robo-advisors
are based on narrow analytical AI that technically exceeds human abilities (memory, faster
JOSM information processing, etc.) (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2019). Robo-advisors provide financial
33,2 advice with minimal human intervention. From the customer perspective, investing via robo-
advisors is simple and practical; they need only around 10 min to register and start investing
(Belanche et al., 2019). The clients first complete a short online form that evaluates their risk
tolerance and return expectations. The AI system then creates a personal investment
portfolio and offers recommendations and/or makes automated adjustments based on the
consumer’s risk profile and objectives. The service is, thus, a prototypical example of an
296 analytical AI-based technology, widely available to the public.
The previous literature has indicated that the two main advantages of AI-based financial
services are profitability and cost savings (Trecet, 2019). In addition, important factors such
as transparency and temporal and ubiquitous accessibility to financial services are
fundamental pillars of the diffusion of robo-advisors (Belanche et al., 2019; Jung et al., 2018b).
Robo-advisors have been described also as instruments that will democratize the investing
world by reducing entry barriers to financial advisory services for a wider public (Dayan,
2019); nevertheless, it has not yet been established whether regular customers are ready to
embrace these technologies.
From the managerial perspective, the scant literature on robo-advisors has focused on
legal issues (Jung et al., 2019). These authors suggested that critical robo-advisor weaknesses
are lack of personal contact, and the risk is that they will not fulfill regulatory fiduciary
requirements. Ji (2017) proposed that companies should be more transparent about the
decisions made by asset-allocation algorithms by, for example, revealing how they deal with
conflicting interests and risk management. Furthermore, Tertilt and Scholz (2018)
highlighted differences in the quality of investment advice offered, positing that robo-
advisors usually ask relatively few questions during risk evaluations.
From a customer-oriented approach, Faloon and Scherer (2017) highlighted the value
provided by system personalization. Similarly, Glaser et al. (2019) examined how the design of
service interfaces might affect financial risk taking, particularly in the context of the need to
present information differently to individuals making large investments. Focusing on
technology adoption models, Belanche et al. (2019) found that perceived usefulness, ease of
use and subjective norms (i.e. social influences) affected robo-advisor acceptance. Ben-David
and Sade (2018) found that performance expectancy and distrust (anxiety) determined
preferences for robo-advisors over human advisors.
However, despite the increasing interest in, and expected growth of, robo-advisors, some
authors have argued that customers are less enthusiastic about robo-advisors than about
banks (Jung et al., 2018b), which may be because customers are not yet ready to rely on
AI-driven systems (Belanche et al., 2020a). van Doorn et al. (2017) and Mende et al. (2019),
focusing on the rise of automated agents, proposed segmenting consumers based on broad
measures such as technology readiness (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015).

3. Hypotheses formulation
3.1 Technology readiness
Personality differences are regarded in management and marketing theories as important
human behavior determinants. Prior new technology acceptance literature has argued that
individual’s reactions to technology are diverse (Mick and Fournier, 1998; Ratchford, 2020).
This can be explained by the positive and negative feelings technology triggers in customers
(Parasuraman and Colby, 2015). In this regard, Parasuraman (2000) developed the TRI,
defining technology readiness as “people’s propensity to embrace and use new technologies
for accomplishing goals in home life and at work” (p. 308). The TRI captures consumers’
positive and negative mental readiness regarding technology; it has previously been
employed to explain the adoption of innovations such self-service technology in airports
(Liljander et al., 2006), C2C platforms (Lu et al., 2012) and mobile payment systems (Martens
et al., 2017). Technology readiness (later improved and renamed TRI 2.0 (Parasuraman and Intention to use
Colby, 2015)) is measured through four dimensions: two motivators, optimism and analytical AI
innovativeness, and two inhibitors, discomfort and insecurity. Prior research has
underlined the independence of the four dimensions as each measures the extent of a
person’s openness to technology differently (Lu et al., 2012).
Technological optimism represents “a positive view of technology and a belief that it
offers people increased control, flexibility, and efficiency in their lives” (Parasuraman and
Colby, 2015, p. 60). This definition can be extended to AI as people may perceive it as a “hell” 297
or a “heaven” (Kaplan and Haenlein, 2020). Optimists accept situations and are more willing
to use new technologies (Lu et al., 2012), perceiving them as functional and trustworthy,
overlooking possible negatives outcomes, than are pessimistic technology users (Walczuch
et al., 2007). Thus, optimistic customers are more positively predisposed toward new
technologies (Godoe and Johansen, 2012). In the financial sector, more enthusiastic consumers
tend to look for new investment opportunities (Clark-Murphy and Soutar, 2004), for example,
robo-advisors. Thus, we propose that:
H1. Customers’ technological optimism has a positive effect on their intention to use
financial robo-advisors.
Technological innovativeness has been defined as “a tendency to be a technology pioneer and
thought leader” (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015, p. 60). Innovators are willing to try new
technologies (Martens et al., 2017) and related services (Rodriguez-Ricardo et al., 2018). Highly
innovative people tend to be open-minded and exhibit greater willingness to use technologies,
including innovative financial services, for example, mobile payment (Oliveira et al., 2016).
Furthermore, innovativeness is an antecedent of adoption intentions; innovative customers
generally have a positive impression of technology functionality even when its potential
value is uncertain (Prodanova et al., 2021). Thus, we propose:
H2. Customers’ technological innovativeness has a positive effect on their intention to
use financial robo-advisors.
Technology discomfort has been defined as “a perceived lack of control over technology and a
feeling of being overwhelmed by it” (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015, p. 60). People who
experience discomfort with technologies perceive them as complicated and unable to satisfy
their needs (Lu et al., 2012). Customers experiencing high levels of discomfort in an unknown
technology environment can feel averse toward using new technology-based products and
services (Tsang et al., 2004). The feeling of lacking control or the capability to deal with
technologies can result in rejection of innovative systems. Customers who feel discomfort in
surrendering control to an automated system may not want to use robo-advisor services.
Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H3. Customers’ technological discomfort has a negative effect on their intention to use
financial robo-advisors.
Finally, technology insecurity has been defined as “distrust of technology, stemming from
skepticism about its ability to work properly and concerns about its potential harmful
consequences” (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015, p. 60). Users need at least a rudimentary
understanding of how AI systems function to have confidence in them (Kaplan and Haenlein,
2019). Customers with high levels of technology insecurity may avoid using them (Lu et al.,
2012). Prior studies have concluded that, in the finance industry, insecure customers tend to
refuse to adopt new technology-based services (Oliveira et al., 2016). Thus, we posit:
H4. Customers’ technological insecurity has a negative effect on their intention to use
financial robo-advisors.
JOSM 3.2 Awareness
33,2 Service awareness has been defined as “being conscious of, having knowledge of, or being
informed about a given service” (Crist et al., 2007, p. 212). Awareness has not hitherto been
closely examined in the technology acceptance literature, but it may be particularly important
in the study of recently launched technological services such as robo-advisors. In advertising,
awareness refers to product/brand recognition (Hellofs and Jacobson, 1999) and indicates that
customers have paid attention to, and are conscious of, information provided about a new
298 product or service.
The scarce literature on service awareness focuses on specific domains. In the elderly care
sector, most studies understand awareness as the customers’ knowledge about the existence
of the service (Andersen et al., 2000). In this sense, individuals with more knowledge about
elderly care services are more aware of their options and use them to a greater extent than
those hearing about the services for the first time (Crist et al., 2007). Thus, individuals’
awareness of services is related to the information they have received, researched and their
experiences. Previous research in an organizational context has shown that when employees
are aware of their company’s corporate social responsibility activities, this encourages them
to contribute to the company’s efforts (Raub and Blunschi, 2014). Applying this concept to
this research domain, we propose that customers who are aware of robo-advisors will be more
willing to use them. Accordingly, we propose:
H5. Customers’ awareness has a positive effect on their intention to use financial robo-
advisors.

3.3 Moderating effects

Previous research has suggested that individual characteristics may help explain the
dynamics of technology acceptance (Sun and Zhang, 2006). More specifically, age, gender and
the user’s previous experience have been proposed as key moderating factors (Venkatesh
et al., 2003; Sun and Zhang, 2006).
It has been found that technology adoption decisions made by younger/older users may be
based on different factors (e.g. Venkatesh et al., 2003; Wang et al., 2009; Chawla and Joshi,
2020). For example, younger users place more importance on extrinsic rewards, that is,
positive outcomes (Venkatesh et al., 2003), which are linked to technological optimism; thus,
optimism will be a more important determinant of intention to use robo-advisors for younger
than for older users. Similarly, younger consumers easily become familiar with new
technologies (Hauk et al., 2018). They have grown up in a digital world with easy access to
copious information (Brenner, 2020), and thus, they are accustomed and may attach more
value, to being up to date. Therefore, optimism and innovativeness may be more important
for younger than for older users in the adoption of financial robo-advisors. In contrast, while
younger customers feel competent to use digital innovations (Hauk et al., 2018), older
customers are typically less skilled in using technological devices and services (Dietrich,
2016). Using new technologies requires fluid cognitive abilities, which decrease with age
(Salthouse, 2004). Therefore, technological discomfort and insecurity may be more important
barriers for older customers. Finally, as the mental ability to process information decreases
with age (Cole and Balasubramanian, 1993), older users may limit the amount of information
they use in their decision-making and mainly rely on their own, previously held beliefs
(Belanche et al., 2012). Thus, awareness may be more important for older consumers as it
involves being conscious of, and having information about, the new technology, which may
help them form more stable and concrete beliefs about the technology. Based on these points,
the following hypothesis is proposed:
H6. Optimism (H6a) and innovativeness (H6b) influence consumers’ intention to use
financial robo-advisors more for younger than for older customers; in turn,
 discomfort (H6c), insecurity (H6d) and awareness (H6e) influence intention to use Intention to use
financial robo-advisors more for older than for younger customers. analytical AI
Another important moderating factor in the adoption and use of emergent technologies is gender
(e.g. Sun and Zhang, 2006; Faqih, 2016; Wang et al., 2009; Chawla and Joshi, 2020). This may be
due to the differences between men’s and women’s decision-making processes (Venkatesh and
Morris, 2000) as they consider different factors as more important when evaluating behaviors.
The consumer behavior literature has identified that men are more motivated by achievement 299
needs than women (Hoffman, 1972); therefore, with identical levels of technological optimism,
men may be more likely to adopt new technologies to achieve gains. Similarly, previous studies
have suggested that, traditionally, men are more associated with innovative behaviors than are
women (Luksyte et al., 2018); thus, following role congruity (Eagly and Karau, 2002),
innovativeness may be a more important factor for men than for women. On the other hand,
women tend to exhibit higher anxiety and lower self-efficacy than men when dealing with new
technologies (Sun and Zhang, 2006; He and Freeman, 2019), to the extent that they avoid
technologies that cause them discomfort (Faqih, 2016). As a result, with identical levels of
discomfort and insecurity, women may be less likely than men to adopt new technologies.
Similarly, women may value awareness more than men do because it reduces their anxiety levels
and increases their perceived self-efficacy. Indeed, as a means of increasing their confidence with
a technology, women tend to acquire relevant knowledge, by consulting additional information
sources, before making decisions (Burke, 2001), which suggests that awareness may be more
important for women than for men (Sorce et al., 2005). Accordingly, we propose:
H7. Optimism (H7a) and innovativeness (H7b) influence consumer intention to use
financial robo-advisors more for men than for women; discomfort (H7c), insecurity
(H7d) and awareness (H7e) influence intention to use financial robo-advisors more for
men than for women.
Finally, previous studies have suggested that experienced and inexperienced users form their
intentions in different ways (Sun and Zhang, 2006; Venkatesh et al., 2003). The individual’s prior
experience with financial services may form his/her behavioral intentions, based on his/her
habits and favorable predisposition toward investment services (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975).
Consequently, previous experience is another moderator variable that has been extensively
examined in technology acceptance studies (Venkatesh et al., 2003; Venkatesh, 2000). Experience
also increases customers’ perceptions of their ability and confidence to manage new information
services (Meuter et al., 2005). Conversely, feelings of insecurity or discomfort may be more
important for new than for repeat customers (Constantinides, 2004). Thus, all other things being
equal, where the consumer has more investment experience, this will enhance the positive effects
of technological optimism and innovativeness, and reduce the negative effects of technological
discomfort and insecurity, In turn, service awareness may be more important for less
experienced customers than for more experienced customers as the previous literature suggests
that less experienced customers need more information about new products and services to
adopt them (Breuer and Brettel, 2012). Thus, the following hypothesis is proposed:
H8. Optimism (H8a) and innovativeness (H8b) influence intention to use financial robo-
advisors more for experienced than they do for less experienced customers; in turn,
discomfort (H8c), insecurity (H8d) and awareness (H8e) influence intention to use
financial robo-advisors more for less experienced than they do for more experienced
customers.

3.4 Control variables

3.4.1 Technology acceptance model (TAM). The technology acceptance model (TAM) (Davis,
1989; Davis et al., 1989), due to its parsimony and predictive capability, has been widely
JOSM employed to explain technology adoption in various sectors (Venkatesh et al., 2003). Thus, to
33,2 complete our framework, we introduce perceptions of ease of use and usefulness (the TAM’s
two independent variables) as control variables that may exert a positive effect on behavioral
intentions toward robo-advisors. Davis defined ease of use as “the degree to which a person
believes that using a particular system would be free of effort”, and perceived usefulness as
“the degree to which a person believes that using a particular system would enhance his or
her performance” (Davis, 1989, p. 320).
300 3.4.2 Sociodemographics. Sociodemographic factors have been shown to be important in
the adoption of technology and financial services; they may also exert a direct effect on
behavioral intentions (Xiao and Kumar, 2019). In other words, robo-advisors may be more
accepted by some customers groups than by others (Belanche et al., 2020a). Thus, for the sake
of completeness, the direct effects of age, gender and previous investment experience on
intention to use robo-advisors are included in the model.
3.4.3 FinTech name. Finally, to increase the contribution of this research and enhance its
managerial implications for this first stage of the adoption process, we manipulated the name
given to this new automated financial advisory service. Currently, the term “robo-advisor”
(i.e. the contracted form of robotic-advisor) is the academic and industry standard (Jung et al.,
2018a; McCann, 2020). However, it includes the word “robot”; robots have been defined as
“mechanical devices programed to perform specific physical tasks” (Belanche et al., 2020a,
p. 205). Thus, the term robo-advisor may mistakenly suggest that this service is provided by a
physical machine or humanoid agent. It is proposed that the term “AI-advisor” is much more
appropriate because the tasks are performed through AI, that is, “technologies that mimic or
even surpass human intelligence” (Huang et al., 2019, p. 44), not by robots. Indeed, analytical
AI learns from, and adapts to, data input, which represents a higher level of advancement
than mechanical technologies (Huang and Rust, 2018; Belanche et al., 2020b). Therefore,
despite the increasing popularity of the name “robo-advisor”, we propose that the more
accurate and sophisticated term, “AI-advisor”, may directly increase consumers’ intention to
use the system. Nevertheless, this influence may be particularly important for some
customers (e.g. those more reluctant to use the technology). Indeed, previous research found
that preference for service and brand names often depends on other factors such as consumer
sociodemographics (e.g. Klink, 2009), which suggests possible moderation effects on this
control variable that we include in our model for the sake of completeness.
Figure 1 summarizes the proposed research framework.

4. Method
4.1 Data collection
The study data were collected through an online survey designed and hosted by
SurveyMonkey. An invitation and link to the questionnaire was sent to US-based English-
speaking consumers between 20 and 85 years. This sampling process was conducted using a
reputable consumer panel comprising over 70,000 consumers unrelated to any specific
banking provider. The participants were paid US$ 1.20. Only those respondents who
completed the whole questionnaire in a reasonable timeframe were rewarded/considered for
analysis. After removing 14 records due to incomplete responses, the final sample was 404.
The sample was very similar in sociodemographic terms to North American consumers aged
between 20 and 85 (US Census Bureau Office, 2020). Table 1 shows the participants’ and US
population’s demographics.
The invitation link asked the panelists to participate in a study about financial services.
Replicating other experimental design manipulation procedures, for around half of the sample
the advisor was referred to as a “robo-advisor”; whereas for the other half, it was referred to as
an “AI-advisor”. Some 207 participants were randomly assigned to the AI-advisor scenario, and
 Technology Readiness
Customer characteristics Intention to use
Previous
analytical AI
Age
experience
Optimism
H1 + Gender

H6 H8
Innovativeness
H2 + 301
H7

H3 –
Discomfort Intention to use AI
(robo-advisors)
H4 –

Insecurity

H5 +
Control variables

Awareness FinTech
Ease of use Usefulness
name

Figure 1.
Research model
Note(s): Solid lines represent direct effects; broken lines represent moderating effects

197 to the robo-advisor scenario. The name given to the service was the only difference between
the scenarios. Both subgroups were similar in terms of gender and age distribution. Specifically,
χ 2 tests confirms that there is no significant difference in gender (χ 2 5 0.329, 1 d.f., p > 0.1) and
age (χ 2 5 10.105, 12 d.f., p > 0.1) distributions between both groups. The questionnaires were
adapted to the different financial service names. The study’s website gave the participants the
kind of information normally presented to consumers considering using robo-advisors. First,
they were provided with a basic general description of financial robo-advisors (or AI-advisor);
this explained that they were new autonomous financial advisors that evaluated the market
through analytical AI and adapted their advice to the customers’ profiles. As robo-advisors
have no anthropomorphic appearance, the description included four illustrative screenshots of
a real financial advisor interface, showing graphs and rates adapted to avoid brand familiarity
bias (i.e. colors, fonts and figures were altered, and company names omitted). The questionnaire
included TRI-related scales of optimism, innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity; it also
asked the respondents about their level of awareness of these financial services. They were also
asked to indicate the perceived ease of use and usefulness of, and their intention to use, robo-
advisors/AI-advisors. The final questions covered sociodemographics (age and gender) and
previous investment experience.
4.2 Measurement instrument
All scales used in the study were adapted from the previous literature. Appendix shows the
scale items employed for the robo-advisors (as aforementioned, the scales were also adapted
to the “AI-advisor” name). Specifically, we incorporated Parasuraman and Colby’s (2015) TRI;
this uses 16 items (four per construct) to measure customers’ levels of optimism,
innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015). The consumers’
awareness of robo-advisor services was measured using a three-item scale adapted from
Raub and Blunschi (2014) and Collins (2007). Following previous research, awareness was
measured using the following question: “How did you know about robo-advisors?” (Kangis
and Passa, 1997). Perceptions of ease of use and usefulness were measured using scales
JOSM Survey respondents US Census Bureau
33,2 percentage percentage*

Gender Female 47.03 50.97

Male 52.23 49.03
Prefer not to 0.74
say
302 Age (years) 20–24 9.41 8.97
25–29 10.89 9.83
30–34 9.41 9.26
35–39 10.40 9.05
40–44 6.19 8.27
45–49 7.43 8.59
50–54 7.92 8.59
55–59 11.14 8.94
60–64 11.39 8.69
65–69 8.91 7.33
70–74 4.21 5.97
75–79 1.73 3.95
80–84 0.25 2.55
Not reported 0.74
Educational level Primary 1.98 14.82
High/ 14.36 27.01
secondary
University 82.43 58.17
Not reported 1.24
Annual personal income <5,000 6.44 0.46
(US$) 5,000–9,999 3.71 0.66
10,000–14,999 7.67 2.01
15,000–19,999 5.94 3.57
20,000–24,900 6.93 6.57
25,000–34,999 8.91 14.81
35,000–49,999 14.85 20.34
50,000–74,900 20.30 23.85
75,000–99,999 9.41 11.45
100,000 and 15.10 16.28
over
Not reported 0.74
Table 1. Previous investment Yes 56.93 Not reported
Demographic experience? No 43.07 Not reported
characteristics Source(s): * US Census Bureau Office (2020) for people aged between 20 and 84

developed by Davis et al. (1989) and Bhattacherjee (2000), four items per variable. The
participants’ intention to use robo-advisors was measured using three items adapted from
Bhattacherjee (2000). All scales used self-reported measures based on seven-point Likert-type
response formats, from 1 (“completely disagree”) to 7 (“completely agree”). The demographic
questions covered age (1 5 20–24 years, 2 5 25–29, 3 5 30–34, 4 5 35–39, 5 5 40–44, 6 5 45–49,
7 5 50–54; 8 5 55–59, 9 5 60–64, 10 5 65–69, 11 5 70–74, 12 5 75–79, 13 5 80–84) and gender
(1 5 woman, 0 5 man), and the participants were asked about previous investment experience
(1 5 yes, 0 5 no).

4.3 Analytical procedure and measure validation

Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM), with SmartPLS 3.0 statistical
software, was used to analyze the research model and test the hypotheses. PLS was selected
as the estimation method because the main goal of this research is predictive (i.e. to predict Intention to use
intention to use robo-advisors). PLS is appropriate because, as a variance-based (VB) SEM analytical AI
(compared to the covariance-based [CB] SEM), it provides optimal predictive power (e.g.
Fornell and Bookstein, 1982; Bagozzi, 1994). In addition, PLS modeling is particularly useful
for testing exploratory models formed by numerous variables under normality and non-
normality data distribution assumptions (Hair et al., 2016; Rold
an and S
anchez-Franco, 2012).
Similarly, the previous literature (e.g. Anderson and Gerbing, 1988; Baumgartner and
Homburg, 1996) has suggested that, to identify a model in CB SEM, a minimum of three 303
indicators per construct must be used. Therefore, as we consider sociodemographics (age,
gender and previous investment experience) using only one indicator per construct and
develop a complex model which includes several simultaneous direct and moderating effects,
PLS is more appropriate (Davcik, 2014). Finally, this analytical method has been frequently
used in well-established service journals (Hogreve et al., 2019; Bacile, 2020).
To assess the validity of the measurement model, we first confirmed the constructs’
convergent validity. All item loadings exceeded the recommended value of 0.7 (Henseler et al.,
2009), except for the first insecurity item (λ 5 0.499), which was removed from the model. As
Table 2 shows, both the Cronbach’s α and the composite reliability of the latent constructs
exceeded the 0.7 thresholds (Nunnally and Bernstein, 1994). Furthermore, the average
variance extracted (AVE) of each construct exceeded the recommended threshold of 0.5 (Hair
et al., 2013).
To test for discriminant validity (see Table 3), we verified that the square roots of the
AVEs for each construct were greater than the inter-construct correlations (Fornell and
Larcker, 1981). Furthermore, the heterotrait-monotrait ratio (HTMT), which evaluates the
average of the HTMT correlations, was, in each case, below the 0.85 threshold (Henseler
et al., 2015).
Finally, we tested for available global model fit measures using PLS-SEM. The normed fit
index (NFI) was 0.85, which is close to the recommended 0.90 (Hu and Bentler, 1998). The
standardized root mean square residual (SRMR) of the research model was 0.05, which is
lower than 0.08, indicating good model fit (Hu and Bentler, 1998).

5. Results
5.1 Structural model
To test the hypotheses and the structural model, the SmartPLS algorithm, followed by
bootstrapping with 5,000 subsamples, was used (Hair et al., 2011). The results are presented in
Table 4. As to the technology readiness-related hypotheses, the results indicated that
customers’ optimism significantly influenced their intention to use robo-advisors (β 5 0.187,
p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 1. In turn, customers’ level of innovativeness did not have a
significant effect on use intentions (β 5 0.015, p > 0.10); thus, Hypothesis 2 is not supported.

Variable Cronbach’s α CR AVE

Optimism 0.909 0.936 0.786

Innovativeness 0.902 0.931 0.773
Discomfort 0.838 0.855 0.600
Insecurity 0.771 0.811 0.596
Awareness 0.913 0.945 0.851
Intention to use 0.948 0.966 0.906
Ease of use 0.956 0.968 0.883
Usefulness 0.966 0.975 0.907 Table 2.
Note(s): CR 5 composite reliability, AVE 5 average variance extracted Convergent validity
 33,2

304
JOSM

Table 3.
Discriminant validity
Fornell–Larcker criterion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Optimism 0.887
2. Innovativeness 0.431 0.879
3. Discomfort 0.162 0.033 0.774
4. Insecurity 0.307 0.264 0.329 0.772
5. Awareness 0.193 0.334 0.170 0.011 0.923
6. Intention to use 0.418 0.308 0.087 0.217 0.456 0.952
7. Ease of use 0.345 0.315 0.092 0.203 0.300 0.501 0.940
8. Usefulness 0.333 0.161 0.048 0.151 0.259 0.644 0.557 0.952
9. Age 0.187 0.327 0.002 0.149 0.109 0.213 0.110 0.144 1.000
10. Gender 0.053 0.013 0.010 0.099 0.121 0.069 0.101 0.052 0.096 1.000
11. Previous investment experience 0.182 0.272 0.060 0.082 0.442 0.262 0.277 0.151 0.019 0.070 1.000
12. FinTech name 0.018 0.010 0.058 0.069 0.060 0.045 0.014 0.022 0.020 0.029 0.018 1.000

Heterotrait–Monotrait ratio (HTMT)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

1. Optimism
2. Innovativeness 0.475
3. Discomfort 0.214 0.171
4. Insecurity 0.379 0.252 0.544
5. Awareness 0.213 0.358 0.180 0.078
6. Intention to use 0.449 0.326 0.065 0.172 0.489
7. Ease of use 0.368 0.344 0.127 0.142 0.321 0.523
8. Usefulness 0.354 0.168 0.042 0.116 0.275 0.672 0.576
9. Age 0.195 0.346 0.114 0.114 0.113 0.217 0.112 0.147
10. Gender 0.055 0.045 0.019 0.144 0.127 0.070 0.103 0.053 0.096
11. Previous investment experience 0.192 0.278 0.060 0.075 0.463 0.268 0.283 0.154 0.019 0.070
12. FinTech name 0.027 0.011 0.076 0.068 0.064 0.046 0.014 0.023 0.020 0.029 0.018
Hypotheses β p-value Supported
Intention to use
analytical AI
TRI variables
Optimism (H1) 0.187*** 0.000 Supported
Innovativeness (H2) 0.015 0.775 Not Supported
Discomfort (H3) 0.079* 0.094 Not Supported1
Insecurity (H4) 0.094** 0.036 Supported
Awareness (H5) 0.221*** 0.000 Supported 305
Moderating effects
Age 3 Optimism (H6a) 0.042 0.334 Not Supported
Age 3 Innovativeness (H6b) 0.025 0.619 Not Supported
Age 3 Discomfort (H6c) 0.027 0.586 Not Supported
Age 3 Insecurity (H6d) 0.043 0.367 Not Supported
Age 3 Awareness (H6e) 0.083* 0.074 Not Supported1
Gender 3 Optimism (H7a) 0.058 0.135 Not Supported
Gender 3 Innovativeness (H7b) 0.090** 0.043 Supported
Gender 3 Discomfort (H7c) 0.008 0.877 Not Supported
Gender 3 Insecurity (H7d) 0.033 0.468 Not Supported
Gender 3 Awareness (H7e) 0.090** 0.024 Supported
Experience 3 Optimism (H8a) 0.008 0.845 Not Supported
Experience 3 Innovativeness (H8b) 0.048 0.288 Not Supported
Experience 3 Discomfort (H8c) 0.054 0.258 Not Supported
Experience 3 Insecurity (H8d) 0.100** 0.040 Supported
Experience 3 Awareness (H8e) 0.082 0.151 Not Supported
Control variables
TAM variables
Usefulness 0.413*** 0.000
Ease of use 0.125** 0.011
Sociodemographics
Age 0.076** 0.050
Gender 0.001 0.976
Previous investment experience 0.025 0.556
FinTech name (Direct effect)
Fintech name (AI vs. robo-advisor) 0.033 0.334
FinTech name (Moderating effects)
Fintech name 3 Optimism 0.026 0.492
Fintech name 3 Innovativeness 0.025 0.597
Fintech name 3 Discomfort 0.027 0.571
Fintech name 3 Insecurity 0.064 0.174
Fintech name 3 Awareness 0.066 0.127
Fintech name 3 Age 0.001 0.973
Fintech name 3 Gender 0.000 0.993 Table 4.
Fintech name 3 Experience 0.043 0.262 Results, estimated
Note(s): 1 Significant effect, contrary to expected coefficients and
***p < 0.01; **p < 0.05; *p < 0.10 significance

Contrary to expectations, customers’ discomfort with technologies had a significant positive

influence on behavioral intentions (β 5 0.079, p < 0.10); thus, Hypothesis 3, which proposed a
negative effect, is not supported. Conversely, customers’ feelings of insecurity with the
technology had a significant negative impact on their intentions to use robo-advisor financial
services (β 5 0.094, p < 0.05), supporting Hypothesis 4. In addition, the consumers’
awareness of robo-advisors had a significant positive effect on their intention to use these
services (β 5 0.221, p < 0.01), supporting Hypothesis 5.
JOSM Most of the influences exerted by the control variables were consistent with the previous
33,2 literature. That is, customers’ perceptions of both robo-advisors’ ease of use (β 5 0.125,
p < 0.05) and usefulness (β 5 0.413, p < 0.01) had a significant positive impact on their
decisions to use them. Older customers showed lower intentions to use the service
(β 5 0.076, p < 0.05). Nevertheless, gender did not have a direct influence on intentions to
use robo-advisors (β 5 0.001, p > 0.10). Similarly, the customers’ previous investment
experience did not significantly influence their behavioral intentions (β 5 0.025, p > 0.10).
306 Finally, the FinTech name used (AI-advisor vs robo-advisor) did not have a direct influence
on use intentions (β 5 0.033, p > 0.10).
The results of the analysis of the moderating effects produced some interesting findings.
Age did not moderate the effect of the TRI variables on intention to use. Thus, optimism,
innovativeness, discomfort and insecurity affected customers similarly, irrespective of age.
However, age moderated the effect of awareness on intention to use (β 5 0.083, p < 0.10);
being aware of robo-advisors was more important for younger than for older customers.
Awareness was also moderated by gender (β 5 0.090, p < 0.05), that is, being aware of robo-
advisors is more important for women than it is for men. Gender also moderated the effect of
innovativeness (β 5 0.090, p < 0.05), that is, the influence of innovativeness on intention to
use robo-advisors was higher for men than for women. Nevertheless, gender did not moderate
the effect of the other two TRI variables. Conversely, investment experience moderated the
influence of insecurity on intention to use (β 5 0.100, p < 0.05), that is, insecurity acts as an
inhibitor of adoption for less experienced customers. Nevertheless, investment experience did
not moderate the influence of optimism, innovativeness, discomfort and awareness on
behavioral intentions. Finally, the name given to the service, “AI-advisor” or “robo-advisor”,
did not influence use intentions or moderate the influence of the other independent variables.
These relationships help explain the dependent variable, behavioral intention to use robo-
advisors (R2 5 0.566). This value can be considered to have a high level of explained variance
in comparison to previous studies examining behavioral intentions toward technology-based
services (Venkatesh and Davis, 2000). As an additional assessment of the model’s capability
to predict the endogenous variable, we examined the Stone–Geisser Q2 using the blindfolding
technique (Tenenhaus et al., 2005). This indicator showed a value well above zero
(Q2 5 0.512), thus the observed values of intention to use can be reconstructed as evidence of
the model’s predictive relevance (Henseler et al., 2009).

5.2 Post-hoc analysis: the roles of awareness and financial advisor name
To better understand consumer awareness, we carried out a post-hoc analysis. As normal in
research into service awareness in other fields (e.g. Kangis and Passa, 1997), the questionnaire
asked the respondents if they had previously been aware of robo-advisor services. Some
54.95% of the sample reported that they had not been very aware of robo-advisors, and
45.05% that they had learned about robo-advisors through the following means: 32.11% from
press and news reports, 26.42% from financial services ads, 12.20% because their bank had
directly offered them the service, 11.38% through their own means (i.e. through online
searches and their own experiences), 8.94% from other customers and 8.94% through other
means (e.g. specialized investment magazines and blogs). We analyzed to what extent robo-
advisor adoption was affected by how consumers became aware of them. As the categories
were not exclusive, independent t-tests were conducted; taking one example, we compared
intention to use robo-advisors by the customer group who learned about them through
advertising with those who did not learn about them through advertising. The results
showed that awareness of robo-advisors by almost any means increased intention to use,
supporting Hypothesis 5. The analyses showed that customers with higher intention to use
robo-advisors had learned about the services through their own means (M 5 4.64, t 5 4.35,
p < 0.01), followed by customers who received information directly from their banks
(M 5 4.40, t 5 3.72, p < 0.01) and from other customers (M 5 4.30, t 5 2.74, p < 0.01); Intention to use
participants who had been exposed to robo-advisor advertisements (M 5 3.81, t 5 2.51, analytical AI
p < 0.05) and related news items (M 5 3.78, t 5 2.70, p < 0.01) also had increased intentions to
use the services, but to a lesser extent. Being aware of robo-advisors by other means did not
significantly influence use intention (M 5 3.55, t 5 0.66, p > 0.10). Figure 2 illustrates use
intentions based on how customers became aware of the services.
In addition, we used the participants’ responses to test whether the financial advisor’s
name had a differential effect on behavioral intentions among those aware and unaware of the 307
service. We performed a 2 (aware vs unaware) 3 2 (AI-advisor vs. robo-advisor) analysis of
variance (ANOVA) to assess the interaction effect between both factors on intention to use.
The results of the ANOVA confirmed that consumer awareness significantly increased
intention to use (F 5 25.82; p < 0.01), whereas the financial advisor’s name did not (F 5 1.17;
p > 0.01). The interaction effect between both variables on intention to use was also
significant (F 5 25.82; p < 0.01), as Figure 3 shows. Specifically, the FinTech name did not
significantly affect customers unaware of the service (MAI-advisor 5 2.78, MRobo-advisor 5 3.02,
t 5 1.07, p > 0.10). However, the financial service’s name was important for customers aware
of the service; they presented higher use intentions for AI-advisors than for robo-advisors
(MAI-advisor 5 4.08, MRobo-advisor 5 3.47, t 5 2.37, p < 0.05).

6. Discussion
6.1 Theoretical implications
Robo-advisor services represent a prototypical example of analytical AI, which is already
shaking the financial services industry. However, some customers may be reluctant to start
using such a disruptive technology. To understand more about this underexplored field, we
investigated whether customers are ready to embrace robo-advisors. To that end, we
analyzed the extent to which the direct effect of technology readiness factors and awareness,
and the moderation effects of age, gender, previous experience and the FinTech advisor’s
name influenced customers’ decisions to use analytical AI to manage their investments. This
is the first study to test the effects of technology readiness on consumers’ preferences for

4.5
Intention to use robo-advisors

3.5

2.5

2
Figure 2.
1.5 Mean values of
intention to use robo-
advisors based on how
1 potential customers
Own means Bank Other Advertising News Other means Non-aware became aware of them
customers
JOSM 4.5

33,2 Name robo-advisor

Name AI-advisor

Intention to use robo-advisors

4.0

308
3.5

3.0
Figure 3.
Service awareness and
FinTech name
interaction effect on
intention to use 2.5
Unaware customers Aware customers

analytical AI, which had been identified as a research gap (Belanche et al., 2020a; Mende et al.,
2019; van Doorn et al., 2017).
As a novel, important finding, technological discomfort, that is, the lack of control and
overwhelming complexity of technologies experienced by some customers, had a positive and
significant effect on intention to use robo-advisors. This result is particularly interesting
because technological discomfort was originally proposed as a TRI factor that inhibited
adoption (Parasuraman, 2000; Parasuraman and Colby, 2015). Indeed, discomfort has been
shown to reduce the adoption of investment software among employees (Walczuch et al.,
2007). AI systems are based on automation, thus the user does not need to deal with the
demanding, and often problematic, tasks of understanding and operating the technology,
tasks that must be undertaken when using other systems; analytical AI carries out the tasks
for the user (Belanche et al., 2020b). Therefore, paradoxically, AI systems may be particularly
embraced by customers who suffer higher levels of technological discomfort because
automation removes the need for learning and dealing with awkward technological
processes. This finding provides a thought-provoking insight into the AI adoption literature
as customers may no longer need to play active roles in the service process. A theoretical
contribution of the present study is the finding that technological discomfort, previously
regarded as a key barrier to technology adoption, might act as a driver of acceptance. In turn,
several important drivers of adoption, such as the user’s self-efficacy, or perceived control,
may act in the future as barriers to AI adoption (i.e. more skillful users might avoid using AI).
Furthermore, this finding questions some service-dominant logic value co-creation axioms
such as “The customer is always a co-creator of value”, and that “Value is always uniquely
and phenomenologically determined by the beneficiary” (Vargo and Lusch, 2016, p. 8). In the
context of analytical AI robo-advisors, the customer no longer plays an active role, that is, the
technology creates the value. When frontline employees are replaced by automated agents
interacting socially with customers (e.g. assistive robots), the participation of the different
 c et al., 2018). However, when automated agents
actors often leads to value co-creation (Cai

replace the customers’ role because of their greater skills and performance, value is created
because of the customer’s reduced participation. In other words, lower customer participation
and co-creation results in higher service value.
Turning to the other TRI variables (Parasuraman and Colby, 2015), as hypothesized,
customers’ optimism had a positive impact, and insecurity had a negative impact, on robo-
advisor adoption. In general, higher technology optimistic customers will be more likely to Intention to use
use robo-advisors as they believe they will help them better perform their tasks and increase analytical AI
their quality of life. Thus, our results suggested that having an overall positive opinion about
the benefits of technology encourages customers to embrace innovations, as was the case
with previous technologies when first launched onto the market (Liljander et al., 2006). In
addition, optimism may be increasingly important in the post-COVID-19 era, during which
individuals perceived that robot and AI-based technologies increased their quality of life
(Gonz
alez-Jim
enez, 2020). 309
In turn, insecurity concerns reduced consumers’ behavioral intentions to use robo-
advisors. Thus, customers who worry about the harmful consequences of technologies, such
as increased technology dependence or reduced personal interaction quality, may avoid using
AI-based financial services. This finding is in line with recent research that has indicated
there is a need to explore people’s fear of service robots and AI, especially when these
innovations have human skills or appearances (Mende et al., 2019; Ransbotham et al., 2018).
Indeed, it seems that anxiety felt toward AI and robots will become a field of increasing
interest among scholars and should be added to the already wide body of knowledge about
customers’ awareness of the harmful consequences of technology (e.g. smartphone or social
media addiction (Jiang et al., 2018; Sanz-Blas et al., 2019)). An interesting moderating effect
observed was that insecurity inhibited behavioral intentions to use robo-advisors more
among customers without investment experience than among those with investment
experience. This finding suggests that investment experience lowers the barriers to
acceptance of this new technology; thus, experienced customers, who will be less troubled by
technology threats, may be a good target sector for robo-advisors. This finding is in line with
previous research that found that consumers must have confidence in both the vendor (firm)
and the technology to adopt new technology-based services (Belanche et al., 2014) such as
robo-advisors (Cheng et al., 2019).
In contrast, innovativeness did not have a significant direct effect on behavioral
intentions. That is, in general, customers’ technology innovativeness is not a critical driver of
robo-advisor adoption. Perhaps, in such an evolving market, the more innovative consumers
are looking for even more creative investment alternatives such as cryptocurrencies and/or
crowdfunding. To the extent that robo-advisors reduce the active role of customers through
technology, they may also attract less innovative customers. Nevertheless, the influence of
innovativeness is significant among men and exerts a positive effect on their intentions to use
robo-advisors. This finding is consistent with previous studies that have suggested that
innovative men are more likely to use new service technologies (Kalini
c et al., 2019).
Therefore, innovative men may be a particularly fertile target segment for robo-advisor
service adoption.
In an additional theoretical contribution, we identified that customer awareness positively
influenced intention to use robo-advisors, shedding light on a factor ignored in the previous
technology adoption literature. Our study found that service awareness (i.e. being conscious
of and having knowledge of) significantly increased the acceptance of new and disruptive
services among many customer groups. The moderating effects observed revealed that
awareness is particularly important for younger customers and women. These findings align
with previous research; as women report lower levels of self-efficacy when dealing with new
technologies (Sun and Zhang, 2006), awareness may be especially important for them as it
increases confidence in technologies. On the other hand, awareness is more important for
younger than for older customers. This may be because younger users are more autonomous
in their decision-making (Sun and Zhang, 2006) and, thus, may rely to a greater extent on their
acquired knowledge, that is, awareness, to decide whether to adopt this new technology. This
finding is consistent with previous research into social communications which has suggested
that younger people and women tend to incorporate available social information into their
JOSM decision-making processes (Sorce et al., 2005; Burke, 2001). The study’s post-hoc analysis
33,2 increased the understanding of how customers become aware of the existence of robo-
advisors, and to what extent this information affects use intentions. These findings
contribute to the existing knowledge in the field as previous studies have found that
subjective norms (i.e. other’s opinions) affect robo-advisor adoption (Belanche et al., 2019);
however, we identified that when customers become aware of robo-advisors through their
own means, or directly from their banks, they are more likely to adopt the service. In addition,
310 the results of the post-hoc analysis revealed that for customers’ who were previously aware of
these services, the name “AI-advisor” created higher use intention than did the name “robo-
advisor”. Thus, although the standard industry name, robo-advisor, may be effective with
first-time users, those with previous knowledge of these FinTech initiatives were more
attracted by the term “AI-advisor”.
The control variables included in the model also affected customers’ intentions to use
robo-advisors. As proposed in technology adoption models (e.g. the TAM; Davis, 1989),
customers’ perceptions of robo-advisors as easy to use and useful increased their behavioral
intentions. Customers tend to use technologies that perform well and do not require too much
effort to operate. These effects are consistent with those observed in previous research
(Bhattacherjee, 2000; Belanche et al., 2019), and can be understood in economic terms as
customers’ decisions in financial markets are often based on the cost-benefit paradigm,
including nonmonetary and psychological costs (Lee and Cunningham, 2001). As to the direct
effects of demographic factors, older customers had lower use intention. This finding is
consistent with previous research that indicated that older customers have more negative
attitudes toward online-based services and service robots (Hudson et al., 2017; Onorato, 2018).
Thus, our study confirms that robo-advisors are more likely to be popular among younger
users, and that older consumers may prefer traditional financial advice channels (Woodyard
and Grable, 2018). Our results also suggested that men and women are equally inclined to use
robo-advisors. Although the previous literature has found that women have more negative
attitudes than men toward technological services (Chen and Huang, 2016), this was not the
case in this analysis of a representative sample of North American men and women. Finally,
we found that prior investment experience did not affect customers’ intention to use
automated financial advisors. Perhaps customers with previous experience feel they do not
need to switch to FinTech alternatives. In any case, these findings reinforced the proposals
that robo-advisors democratize access to financial investment services (Belanche et al.,
2020a), and that FinTech services should be oriented toward both men and women, with or
without previous investment experience.

6.2 Managerial implications

Banks and financial service providers are introducing robo-advisors to achieve competitive
advantage based on economies of scale and scope (Wirtz et al., 2018). Our findings to a
significant extent explain customers’ intention to use robo-advisors and have interesting
practical implications, not only for financial services’ managers but also for companies
seeking to introduce AI technologies into their service offerings. Potential customers need to
perceive robo-advisors as easy to use and useful for their financial management. Providing
clear instructions and user-friendly apps to help customers start using these innovations
could increase ease of use perceptions. Undertaking trial programs and providing statistics
about robo-advisors’ performance may also enhance perceived usefulness.
Technology readiness plays a crucial role, but managers should pay more attention to
customer characteristics that have been shown to form intention to use robo-advisors.
Specifically, banks and other financial firms should focus on customers with higher levels of
technological optimism as potential users of robo-advisor services. To identify customers
with this profile, companies should identify individuals who are enthusiastic about the use of
technological services. They could do this through normal market research techniques, for Intention to use
example, customer surveys, CRM and big data analytics (e.g. linked to customers’ activity on analytical AI
social media). Communication campaigns using celebrities and/or influencers with multiple
followers based on their technology optimism (e.g. YouTube gaming influencers) could help
attract customers through social media.
Customers with higher technology discomfort may be more likely to adopt robo-advisor
services. Banks and finance companies should focus on customers who are interested in
making investments, but who do not want to undertake the complicated task of managing 311
their own investments using complex software and/or who want to avoid the fees and time
involved in interacting with human financial advisors. In this instance, robo-advisors would
fulfill the tasks of analytical AI, that is, helping and supporting less skilled customers using
the newest technological advances in the sector (Huang and Rust, 2018). These customers
might be identified by seeking out those who abandon managing their investments (e.g. due
to complexity) and/or who informally complain about the difficulties of operating other
technological banking systems. Robo-advisor communication campaigns should favorably
contrast the service to human financial advisory services (e.g. “to avoid high fees”) and to
customer self-management (e.g. “let AI do the work”).
The moderation results of the study indicated that customer innovativeness may be
particularly significant in terms of robo-advisor use by men. Segmentation strategies based
on online navigation cookies, programmatic advertising and internal CRM software should
be combined to focus on innovative male customers. Managers might also use cross-selling
techniques in collaboration with leading, groundbreaking technological brands (e.g. Apple,
Amazon Alexa) and with companies focused on innovative users (e.g. IBM and Uber) to target
this customer group.
Managers should also focus on customers’ perceptions of technology insecurity as a key
inhibitor of robo-advisor use intention, specifically among less experienced investors.
Robo-advisors could be offered preferentially to customers with lower levels of
technological insecurity; these might be identified through surveys or other market
research techniques. Alternatively, finance industry companies should try to reduce
insecurity by better explaining how robo-advisors work, why they are reliable (e.g. AI
ensures privacy and data protection (Mazurek and Małagocka, 2019)) and how financial
risks might be limited. Training programs that offer small monetary investments and sign-
on bonuses may reduce the initial wariness about robo-advisors among inexperienced
investors.
As to awareness, the industry should make greater efforts to spread knowledge about
robo-advisors, how they function and their benefits. Banks and other financial firms should
use direct communications to promote these services as these have been shown to be more
effective than advertising and mass media communication. In addition, they should
encourage customers to increase their knowledge about robo-advisors through their own
means (e.g. detailed information on the web and trial programs). As a complementary,
effective marketing action, managers should develop “bring a friend” campaigns to
encourage more experienced users of robo-advisors to recommend them to other customers.
Finally, our study revealed that younger customers are more willing to use robo-advisors.
It should be easy for companies to address this customer segment as age is basic information
contained in CRM systems. In particular, employees such as bank tellers and financial
advisors should recommend robo-advisors to younger customers in their discussions about
the bank’s services, for example, about which channels to use. Nevertheless, although in this
initial stage, robo-advisors may be preferred by the young, analytical AI and automated
forms of financial management must be taken up by a wide spectrum of customers if
companies are to take advantage of economies of scale and scope (Kumar et al., 2019; Wirtz
et al., 2018).
JOSM 6.3 Limitations and further research
33,2 The present study has several limitations. To test the effect of technology readiness on use
intentions we used the TRI (Parasuraman, 2000; Parasuraman and Colby, 2015). Although the
TRI is the most accepted framework through which to analyze consumers’ technology readiness,
alternative models with slightly different components might be tested (e.g. compatibility (Moore
and Benbasat, 1991), trust (Robinson et al., 2020) and creepiness (Ostrom et al., 2019)). Although
the TRI factors may overlap with some of these variables (Liljander et al., 2006), alternative
312 measures directly related to the financial market could be employed (Lee and Cunningham, 2001).
Similarly, further research is needed to clarify the influence of customers’ technological readiness
on AI adoption in other sectors (e.g. health, education and tourism) (Yoganathan et al., 2021). The
important role of awareness in adoption may vary as time passes. In particular, as robo-advisor
use increases, customers will develop greater knowledge, which will increase awareness among
their peers (e.g. word-of-mouth and consumer recommendations). Therefore, longitudinal studies
may help explain how the role of awareness evolves over time.
Another limitation is that our study is based on a sample of North Americans, who tend to
score lower in uncertainty avoidance (Hofstede, 2011) than most European and Asian
consumers. Thus, the research should be replicated in other countries to assess how cultural
dimensions may affect robo-advisor adoption (Belanche et al., 2019). Although the term robo-
advisor seems to be the more popular worldwide, further research should be conducted to
assess whether another name (e.g. AI-advisor or an alternative), or even a specific brand-
related name, may enhance customers’ perceptions of these analytical AI services. Similarly,
increasing the customer’s perception of humanness, for example, by representing the robo-
advisor as a humanoid (Yoganathan et al., 2021; Belanche et al., 2021), might have a
significant impact on acceptance; this merits further research.
The robo-advisor phenomenon should be analyzed within the broader scope of AI, its
ethical limits and the need for regulation of such innovative systems (Robinson et al., 2020).
The moderating effects we found suggest that individuals’ optimism may be crucial for
motivating usage. Nevertheless, people’s concerns with technology (i.e. insecurity) and, in
particular, feelings of anxiety in relation to automated forms of interaction (particularly
among less experienced customers), deserve further research attention. Finally, the study
revealed that, paradoxically, customers with higher technological discomfort are more
willing to embrace AI-based services. Contrary to co-creation axioms that suggest that
technologies require higher user participation and ability, AI could be specifically designed
for less skilled users. Thus, AI would fulfill its original purpose, that is, to use technological
capacities to help humans, especially those who lack skills and/or are less efficient (Huang
and Rust, 2018; Belanche et al., 2020a). Investigating discomfort, and other human limitations,
that have previously been regarded as barriers to technology adoption, but which may now
be contributing to adoption, is a promising future research avenue.

References
Andersen, R., Bozzette, S., Shapiro, M. and St. Clair, P. (2000), “Access of vulnerable groups to
antiretroviral therapy among persons in care for HIV disease in the United States”, Health
Services Research, Vol. 35, pp. 389-416.
Anderson, J. and Gerbing, D. (1988), “Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and
recommended two-step approach”, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 103 No. 3, pp. 411-423.
Bacile, T.J. (2020), “Digital customer service and customer-to-customer interactions: investigating the
effect of online incivility on customer perceived service climate”, Journal of Service
Management, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 441-464.
Bagozzi, R.P. (1994), “Structural equation models in marketing research: basic principles”, in Bagozzi,
R.P. (Ed.), Principles of Marketing Research, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, pp. 125-140.
Baumgartner, H. and Homburg, C. (1996), “Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing Intention to use
and consumer research: a review”, International Journal of Research in Marketing, Vol. 13 No. 2,
pp. 139-161. analytical AI
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V. and Flavi
an, C. (2012), “Understanding the influence of social information
sources on e-government adoption”, Information Research, Vol. 17 No. 3, available at: http://
informationr.net/ir/17-3/paper531.html#.YC-yZ-hKg2w (accessed 18 February 2021).
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V., Flavi
an, C. and Schepers, J. (2014), “Trust transfer in the continued usage of
public e-services”, Information and Management, Vol. 51 No. 6, pp. 627-640. 313
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L. and Flavi
an, C. (2019), “Artificial intelligence in FinTech: understanding robo-
advisors adoption among customers”, Industrial Management and Data Systems, Vol. 119 No. 7,
pp. 1411-1430.
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V., Flavi
an, C. and Schepers, J. (2020a), “Service robot implementation: a
theoretical framework and research agenda”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 40 Nos 3-4,
pp. 203-225.
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V., Flavi
an, C. and Schepers, J. (2020b), “Robots or frontline employees?:
exploring customers’ attributions of responsibility and stability after service failure or success”,
Journal of Service Management, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 267-289.
Belanche, D., Casal
o, L.V., Schepers, J. and Flavi
an, C. (2021), “Examining the effects of robots’
physical appearance, warmth, and competence in frontline services: the Humanness-Value-
Loyalty model”, Psychology and Marketing, forthcoming.
Ben-David, D. and Sade, O. (2018), “Robo-Advisor adoption, willingness to pay, and trust - an
experimental investigation”, available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract53361710 (accessed 25
June 2020).
Bhattacherjee, A. (2000), “Acceptance of e-commerce services: the case of electronic brokerages”, IEEE
Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics—Part A: Systems and Humans, Vol. 30 No. 4,
pp. 411-420.
Blut, M. and Wang, C. (2019), “Technology readiness: a meta-analysis of conceptualizations of the
construct and its impact on technology usage”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 48, pp. 649-669.
Brenner, M. (2020), 17 Digital Marketing Trends You Need to Know for 2021, Marketing Insider
Groups, available at: https://marketinginsidergroup.com/marketing-strategy/marketing-trends/
(accessed 18 February 2021).
Breuer, R. and Brettel, M. (2012), “Short-and long-term effects of online advertising: differences between
new and existing customers”, Journal of Interactive Marketing, Vol. 26 No. 3, pp. 155-166.
Burke, R.J. (2001), “Information sources: is there a gender issue?”, Corporate Communications: An
International Journal, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 7-12.
 c, M., Odekerken-Schr€oder, G. and Mahr, D. (2018), “Service robots: value co-creation and
Cai

co-destruction in elderly care networks”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 2, pp. 178-205.
Caron, M.S. (2019), “The transformative effect of AI on the banking industry”, Banking and Finance
Law Review, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 169-214.
Chawla, D. and Joshi, H. (2020), “The moderating role of gender and age in the adoption of mobile
wallet”, Foresight, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 483-504.
Chen, N.H. and Huang, S.C.T. (2016), “Domestic technology adoption: comparison of innovation
adoption models and moderators”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and
Service Industries, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 177-190.
Cheng, X., Guo, F., Chen, J., Li, K., Zhang, Y. and Gao, P. (2019), “Exploring the trust influencing
mechanism of robo-advisor service: a mixed method approach”, Sustainability, Vol. 11
No. 18, pp. 1-20.
Clark-Murphy, M. and Soutar, G.N. (2004), “What individual investors value: some Australian
evidence”, Journal of Economic Psychology, Vol. 25 No. 4, pp. 539-555.
JOSM Cole, C. and Balasubramanian, S. (1993), “Age differences in consumers’ search for information: public
policy implications”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 157-169.
33,2
Collins, C.J. (2007), “The interactive effects of recruitment practices and product awareness on job
seekers’ employer knowledge and application behaviors”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 92
No. 1, pp. 180-190.
Constantinides, E. (2004), “Influencing the online consumer’s behavior: the Web experience”, Internet
Research, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 111-126.
314
Crist, J.D., Michaels, C., Gelfand, D.E. and Phillips, L.R. (2007), “Defining and measuring service
awareness among elders and caregivers of Mexican descent”, Research and Theory for Nursing
Practice, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 119-134.
Davcik, N.S. (2014), “The use and misuse of structural equation modeling in management research”,
Journal of Advances in Management Research, Vol. 11 No. 1, pp. 47-81.
Davis, F.D. (1989), “Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information
technology”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 319-340.
Davis, F., Bagozzi, R. and Warshaw, P. (1989), “User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison
of two theoretical models”, Management Science, Vol. 35, pp. 982-1003.
Dayan, Y. (2019), “How robo-advisors are single-handedly democratizing the investing world”,
available at: https://www.moneyunder30.com/how-robo-advisors-are-single-handedly-
democratizing-the-investing-world (accesed 20 June 2020).
De Keyser, A., K€ocher, S., Alkire (n
ee Nasr), L., Verbeeck, C. and Kandampully, J. (2019), “Frontline
service technology infusion: conceptual archetypes and future research directions”, Journal of
Service Management, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 156-183.
Dietrich, O. (2016), Understanding the Ageing Consumer: Exploring Strategies for Overcoming
Innovation Resistance, Doctoral dissertation, University of Gloucestershire.
Eagly, A.H. and Karau, S.J. (2002), “Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders”,
Psychological Review, Vol. 109, pp. 573-598.
Faloon, M. and Scherer, B. (2017), “Individualization of robo-advice”, The Journal of Wealth
Management, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 30-36.
Faqih, K.M. (2016), “An empirical analysis of factors predicting the behavioral intention to adopt
Internet shopping technology among non-shoppers in a developing country context: does
gender matter?”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Vol. 30, pp. 140-164.
Fishbein, M. and Ajzen, I. (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: an Introduction to Theory
and Research, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Fornell, C. and Bookstein, F. (1982), “Two structural equation models: LISREL and PLS applied to
consumer exit-voice theory”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 19, pp. 440-452.
Fornell, C. and Larcker, D.F. (1981), “Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable
variables and measurement error”, Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 39-50.
Glaser, F., Iliewa, Z., Jung, D. and Weber, M. (2019), “Towards designing robo-advisors for
unexperienced investors with experience sampling of time-series data”, in Davis, F.D., Riedl, R.,
vom Brocke, J., L
eger, P.M. and Randolph, A.B. (Eds), Information Systems and Neuroscience,
Springer, Cham, pp. 133-138.
Godoe, P. and Johansen, T. (2012), “Understanding adoption of new technologies: technology readiness
and technology acceptance as an integrated concept”, Journal of European Psychology Students,
Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 38-52.
Goldstein, I., Jiang, W. and Karolyi, G.A. (2019), “To FinTech and beyond”, The Review of Financial
Studies, Vol. 32 No. 5, pp. 1647-1661.
Gonz
alez-Jim
enez, H. (2020), “Robots in daily life: a post COVID-19 perspective”, in Bunkanwanicha,
P., Coeurderoy, R. and Ben Slimane, S. (Eds), Managing a Post-Covid-19 Era, ESCP Impact
Papers, pp. 277-282.
Grewal, D., Roggeveen, A.L. and Nordf€alt, J. (2017), “The future of retailing”, Journal of Retailing, Intention to use
Vol. 93 No. 1, pp. 1-6.
analytical AI
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2011), “PLS-SEM: indeed a silver bullet”, Journal of Marketing
Theory and Practice, Vol. 19 No. 2, pp. 139-152.
Hair, J.F., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2013), “Partial least squares structural equation modeling:
rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance”, Long Range Planning, Vol. 46 Nos
1-2, pp. 1-12.
315
Hair, J.F. Jr, Hult, G.T.M., Ringle, C. and Sarstedt, M. (2016), A Primer on Partial Least Squares
Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Hauk, N., H€uffmeier, J. and Krumm, S. (2018), “Ready to be a silver surfer? A meta-analysis on the
relationship between chronological age and technology acceptance”, Computers in Human
Behavior, Vol. 84, pp. 304-319.
He, J. and Freeman, L.A. (2019), “Are men more technology-oriented than women? The role of gender
on the development of general computer self-efficacy of college students”, Journal of
Information Systems Education, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 203-212.
Hellofs, L.L. and Jacobson, R. (1999), “Market share and customers’ perceptions of quality: when can
firms grow their way to higher versus lower quality?”, Journal of Marketing, Vol. 63 No. 1,
pp. 16-25.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sinkovics, R.R. (2009), “The use of partial least squares path modeling in
international marketing”, Advances in International Marketing, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 277-319.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C.M. and Sarstedt, M. (2015), “A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity
in variance-based structural equation modeling”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science,
Vol. 43 No. 1, pp. 115-135.
Hoffman, L.W. (1972), “Early childhood experiences and women’s achievement motives”, Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 129-155.
Hofstede, G. (2011), “Dimensionalizing cultures: the Hofstede model in context”, Online Readings in
Psychology and Culture, Vol. 2 No. 1, pp. 1-26.
Hogreve, J., Bilstein, N. and Hoerner, K. (2019), “Service recovery on stage: effects of social media
recovery on virtually present others”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 421-439.
Hu, L.T. and Bentler, P.M. (1998), “Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: sensitivity to
underparameterized model misspecification”, Psychological Methods, Vol. 3 No. 4, pp. 424-453.
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2018), “Artificial intelligence in service”, Journal of Service Research,
Vol. 21, No. 2, pp. 155-172.
Huang, M.H. and Rust, R.T. (2021), “Engaged to a robot? The role of AI in service”, Journal of Service
Research, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 30-41.
Huang, M.H., Rust, R.T. and Maksimovic, V. (2019), “The feeling economy: managing in the next
generation of artificial intelligence (AI)”, California Management Review, Vol. 61 No. 4,
pp. 43-65.
Hudson, J., Orviska, M. and Hunady, J. (2017), “People’s attitudes to robots in caring for the elderly”,
International Journal of Social Robotics, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 199-210.
Ji, M. (2017), “Are robots good fiduciaries? Regulating robo-advisors under the investment advisers
act of 1940”, Columbia Law Review, Vol. 117, pp. 1543-1583.
Jiang, Q., Li, Y. and Shypenka, V. (2018), “Loneliness, individualism, and smartphone addiction among
international students in China”, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, Vol. 21
No. 11, pp. 711-718.
Jung, D., Dorner, V., Glaser, F. and Morana, S. (2018a), “Robo-advisory”, Business and Information
Systems Engineering, Vol. 60 No. 1, pp. 81-86.
Jung, D., Dorner, V., Weinhardt, C. and Pusmaz, H. (2018b), “Designing a robo-advisor for risk-averse,
low-budget consumers”, Electronic Markets, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 367-380.
JOSM Jung, D., Glaser, F. and K€opplin, W. (2019), “Robo-advisory: opportunities and risks for the future of financial
advisory”, in Nissen, V. (Ed.), Advances in Consulting Research, Springer, Cham, pp. 405-427.
33,2
noz-Leiva, F. and Marinkovi
c, V. (2019), “The moderating
Kalini
c, Z., Li
ebana-Cabanillas, F.J., Mu~
impact of gender on the acceptance of peer-to-peer mobile payment systems”, International
Journal of Bank Marketing, Vol. 38 No. 1, pp. 138-158.
Kangis, P. and Passa, V. (1997), “Awareness of service charges and its influence on customer
expectations and perceptions of quality in banking”, Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 11,
316 No. 2, pp. 105-117.
Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2019), “Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the
interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence”, Business Horizons,
Vol. 62 No. 1, pp. 15-25.
Kaplan, A. and Haenlein, M. (2020), “Rulers of the world, unite! the challenges and opportunities of
artificial intelligence”, Business Horizons, Vol. 63 No. 1, pp. 37-50.
Klink, R.R. (2009), “Gender differences in new brand name response”, Marketing Letters, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 313-326.
Kumar, V., Rajan, B., Venkatesan, R. and Lecinski, J. (2019), “Understanding the role of artificial
intelligence in personalized engagement marketing”, California Management Review, Vol. 61
No. 4, pp. 135-155.
Lee, M. and Cunningham, L.F. (2001), “A cost/benefit approach to understanding service loyalty”,
Journal of Services Marketing, Vol. 15 No. 2, pp. 113-130.
Liljander, V., Gillberg, F., Gummerus, J. and Van Riel, A. (2006), “Technology readiness and the
evaluation and adoption of self-service technologies”, Journal of Retailing and Consumer
Services, Vol. 13 No. 3, pp. 177-191.
Lu, J., Wang, L. and Hayes, L.A. (2012), “How do technology readiness, platform functionality and
trust influence C2C user satisfaction?”, Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, Vol. 13 No. 1,
pp. 50-69.
Lu, V.N., Wirtz, J., Kunz, W.H., Paluch, S., Gruber, T., Martins, A. and Patterson, P.G. (2020), “Service
robots, customers and service employees: what can we learn from the academic literature and
where are the gaps?”, Journal of Service Theory and Practice, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 361-391.
Luksyte, A., Unsworth, K.L. and Avery, D.R. (2018), “Innovative work behavior and sex-based
stereotypes: examining sex differences in perceptions and evaluations of innovative work
behavior”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 39 No. 3, pp. 292-305.
Martens, M., Roll, O. and Elliott, R. (2017), “Testing the technology readiness and acceptance model for
mobile payments across Germany and South Africa”, International Journal of Innovation and
Technology Management, Vol. 14 No. 06, pp. 1-19.
Mazurek, G. and Małagocka, K. (2019), “Perception of privacy and data protection in the context of the
development of artificial intelligence”, Journal of Management Analytics, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 344-364.
McCann, B. (2020), “Robo advisers keep adding on services”, available at: https://www.wsj.com/
articles/robo-advisers-keep-adding-on-arms-11583331556 (accessed 14 June 2020).
Mende, M., Scott, M.L., van Doorn, J., Grewal, D. and Shanks, I. (2019), “Service robots rising: how
humanoid robots influence service experiences and elicit compensatory consumer responses”,
Journal of Marketing Research, Vol. 56 No. 4, pp. 535-556.
Meuter, M.L., Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. and Brown, S.W. (2005), “Choosing among alternative service
delivery modes: an investigation of customer trial of self-service technologies”, Journal of
Marketing, Vol. 69 No. 2, pp. 61-83.
Mick, D.G. and Fournier, S. (1998), “Paradoxes of technology: consumer cognizance, emotions, and
coping strategies”, Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 123-143.
Moore, G.C. and Benbasat, I. (1991), “Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of
adopting an information technology innovation”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 2 No. 3,
pp. 192-222.
Nunnally, J.C. and Bernstein, I.H. (1994), Psychometrictheory, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY. Intention to use
Oliveira, T., Thomas, M., Baptista, G. and Campos, F. (2016), “Mobile payment: understanding the analytical AI
determinants of customer adoption and intention to recommend the technology”, Computers in
Human Behavior, Vol. 61, pp. 404-414.
Onorato, D.A. (2018), “Robots, unions, and aging: determinants of robot adoption evidence from OECD
countries”, Atlantic Economic Journal, Vol. 46 No. 4, pp. 473-474.
Ostrom, A.L., Fotheringham, D. and Bitner, M.J. (2019), “Customer acceptance of AI in service 317
encounters: understanding antecedents and consequences”, in Maglio, P.P., Kieliszewski, C.A.,
Spohrer, J.C., Lyons, K., Patr
ıcio, L. and Sawatani, Y. (Eds), Handbook of Service Science,
Springer, Cham, Vol. II, pp. 77-103.
Parasuraman, A. (2000), “Technology Readiness Index (TRI): a multiple-item scale to measure
readiness to embrace new technologies”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 307-320.
Parasuraman, A. and Colby, C.L. (2015), “An updated and streamlined technology readiness index:
TRI 2.0”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 59-74.
Prodanova, J., San-Mart
ın, S. and Jimenez, N. (2021), “Are you technologically prepared for mobile
shopping?”, The Service Industries Journal, Vol. 41 Nos 9-10, pp. 648-670.
Ransbotham, S., Gerbert, P., Reeves, M., Kiron, D. and Spira, M. (2018), “Artificial intelligence in
business gets real”, available at: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/projects/artificial-intelligence-in-
business-gets-real/.
Ratchford, B.T. (2020), “The history of academic research in marketing and its implications for the
future”, Spanish Journal of Marketing - ESIC, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 3-36.
Raub, S. and Blunschi, S. (2014), “The power of meaningful work: how awareness of CSR initiatives
fosters task significance and positive work outcomes in service employees”, Cornell Hospitality
Quarterly, Vol. 55 No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Robinson, S., Orsingher, C., Alkire, L., De Keyser, A., Giebelhausen, M., Papamichail, K.N., Shams, P.
and Temerak, M.S. (2020), “Frontline encounters of the AI kind: an evolved service encounter
framework”, Journal of Business Research, Vol. 116, pp. 366-376.
Rodriguez-Ricardo, Y., Sicilia, M. and L
opez, M. (2018), “What drives crowdfunding participation? The
influence of personal and social traits”, Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, Vol. 22 No. 2, pp. 163-182.
Rold
an, J.L. and S
anchez-Franco, M.J. (2012), “Variance-based structural equation modeling: guidelines
for using partial least squares in information systems research”, in Mora, M., Gel-Man, O.,
Steenkamp, A. and Raisinghani, M.S. (Eds), Research Methodologies, Innovations, and
Philosophies in Software Systems Engineering and Information Systems, Information Science
Reference, Hershey, PA, pp. 193-221.
Salthouse, T.A. (2004), “What and when of cognitive aging”, Current Directions in Psychological
Science, Vol. 13 No. 4, pp. 140-144.
Sanz-Blas, S., Buzova, D. and Miquel-Romero, M.J. (2019), “From Instagram overuse to instastress and
emotional fatigue: the mediation of addiction”, Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC, Vol. 23
No. 2, pp. 143-161.
Sorce, P., Perotti, V. and Widrick, S. (2005), “Attitude and age differences in online buying”,
International Journal of Retail and Distribution Management, Vol. 33 No. 2, pp. 122-132.
Statista (2019), “Robo-advisors”, available at: https://www.statista.com/outlook/337/100/robo-advisors/
worldwide (accessed 26 October 2019).
Sun, H. and Zhang, P. (2006), “The role of moderating factors in user technology acceptance”,
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Vol. 64 No. 2, pp. 53-78.
Tenenhaus, M., Vinzi, V.E., Chatelin, Y.M. and Lauro, C. (2005), “PLS path modeling”, Computational
Statistics and Data Analysis, Vol. 48 No. 1, pp. 159-205.
Tertilt, M. and Scholz, P. (2018), “To advise, or not to advise—how robo-advisors evaluate the risk
preferences of private investors”, The Journal of Wealth Management, Vol. 21 No. 2, pp. 70-84.
JOSM Trecet, J. (2019), “Un robot a cargo de tus inversiones: as
ı funcionan los robo advisors”, available at:
https://www.businessinsider.es/como-funciona-robo-advisor-como-saber-ti-388261 (accessed 04
33,2 April 2019).
Tsang, M.M., Ho, S.C. and Liang, T.-P. (2004), “Consumer attitudes toward mobile advertising: an
empirical study”, International Journal of Electronic Commerce, Vol. 8 No. 3, pp. 65-78.
US Census Bureau Office (2020), “Age and sex composition in the United States: 2019”, available at:
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2019/demo/age-and-sex/2019-age-sex-composition.html
318 (accessed 18 June 2020).
van Doorn, J., Mende, M., Noble, S.M., Hulland, J., Ostrom, A.L., Grewal, D. and Petersen, J.A. (2017),
“Domo arigato Mr. Roboto: emergence of automated social presence in organizational frontlines
and customers’ service experiences”, Journal of Service Research, Vol. 20 No. 1, pp. 43-58.
Vargo, S.L. and Lusch, R.F. (2016), “Institutions and axioms: an extension and update of service
dominant logic”, Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Vol. 44 No. 1, pp. 5-23.
Venkatesh, V. (2000), “Determinants of perceived ease of use: integrating control, intrinsic motivation,
and emotion into the technology acceptance model”, Information Systems Research, Vol. 11
No. 4, pp. 342-365.
Venkatesh, V. and Davis, F.D. (2000), “A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model:
four longitudinal field studies”, Management Science, Vol. 46 No. 2, pp. 186-204.
Venkatesh, V. and Morris, M.G. (2000), “Why don’t men ever stop to ask for directions? Gender, social
influence, and their role in technology acceptance and usage behavior”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 24
No. 1, pp. 115-139.
Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B. and Davis, F.D. (2003), “User acceptance of information
technology: toward a unified view”, MIS Quarterly, Vol. 27 No. 3, pp. 425-478.
Victorino, L., Karniouchina, E. and Verma, R. (2009), “Exploring the use of the abbreviated technology
readiness index for hotel customer segmentation”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 50 No. 3,
pp. 342-359.
Walczuch, R., Lemmink, J. and Streukens, S. (2007), “The effect of service employees’ technology
readiness on technology acceptance”, Information and Management, Vol. 44 No. 2, pp. 206-215.
Wang, Y.S., Wu, M.C. and Wang, H.Y. (2009), “Investigating the determinants and age and gender
differences in the acceptance of mobile learning”, British Journal of Educational Technology,
Vol. 40 No. 1, pp. 92-118.
Wirtz, J., Patterson, P.G., Kunz, W.H., Gruber, T., Lu, V.N., Paluch, S. and Martins, A. (2018), “Brave
new world: service robots in the frontline”, Journal of Service Management, Vol. 29 No. 5,
pp. 907-931.
Woodyard, A.S. and Grable, J.E. (2018), “Insights into the users of robo-advisory firms”, Journal of
Financial Service Professionals, Vol. 72 No. 5, pp. 56-66.
Xiao, L. and Kumar, V. (2019), “Robotics for customer service: a useful complement or an ultimate
substitute?”, Journal of Service Research, September, pp. 1-21.
Yoganathan, V., Osburg, V.S., Kunz, W.H. and Toporowski, W. (2021), “Check-in at the Robo-desk:
effects of automated social presence on social cognition and service implications”, Tourism
Management, Vol. 85 No. August 2021, p. 104309.
Appendix Intention to use
Scale items
analytical AI

Technology Readiness [1]

Optimism
319
(1) New technologies contribute to a better quality of life
(2) Technology gives me more freedom of mobility
(3) Technology gives people more control over their daily lives
(4) Technology makes me more productive in my personal life

Innovativeness
(1) Other people come to me for advice on new technologies
(2) In general, I am among the first in my circle of friends to acquire new technology when it
appears
(3) I can usually figure out new high-tech products and services without help from others
(4) I keep up with the latest technological developments in my areas of interest

Discomfort
(1) When I get technical support from a provider of a high-tech product or service, I sometimes feel
as if I am being taken advantage of by someone who knows more than I do
(2) Technical support lines are not helpful because they do not explain things in terms that I
understand
(3) Sometimes, I think that technology systems are not designed for use by ordinary people
(4) There is no such thing as a manual for a high-tech product or service that’s written in plain
language

Insecurity
(1) People are too dependent on technology to do things for them
(2) Too much technology distracts people to a point that is harmful
(3) Technology lowers the quality of relationships by reducing personal interaction
(4) I do not feel confident doing business with a service that can only be reached online

Service Awareness

Before reading the description, . . .

(1) I was very aware of robo-advisor services
(2) I had a great deal of knowledge about robo-advisors
(3) I could quickly recall previous information I had received about robot-advisors
JOSM Perceived Ease of Use
33,2 (1) Learning to use robo-advisors would be easy for me
(2) I would find it easy to manage investments using robo-advisors
(3) It would be easy for me to become skillful at using robo-advisors
(4) I would find robo-advisors easy to use
320
Perceived Usefulness
(1) Using robo-advisors would improve my performance in managing investments
(2) Using robo-advisors would improve my productivity in managing investments
(3) Using robo-advisors would enhance my effectiveness in managing investments
(4) I would find robo-advisors useful in managing investments
These questions comprise the Technology Readiness Index 2.0, which is copyrighted by A.
Parasuraman and Rockbridge Associates, Inc., 2014. This scale may be duplicated only with written
permission from the authors. For more information, see Parasuraman and Colby (2015).

About the authors

Carlos Flavi
an PhD, is Professor of Marketing at the University of Zaragoza (Spain). His research
focused on consumer behavior has been published in journals specialized in marketing (e.g. J. Bus. Res.; J.
Interact. Mark.; J. Retail. Consum. Serv.; Eur. J. Mark.; J. Serv. Manag.; J. Prod. Brand Manag.; J. Consum.
Behav), new technologies (e.g. Inf. Manag.; Electron. Mark.; Internet. Res.; Comput. Hum. Behav.; Int. J.
Electron. Commer.; J. Electron. Commer. Res.; Eur. J. Inf. Syst.), Psychology (e.g. Psychol. Mark; J.
Environ. Psychol.; Cyberpsychol. Behav. Soc. Netw.) and Tourism (e.g. Tour. Manag.; Int. J. Contemp.
Hosp. Manag; J. Travel. Tour. Mark.; J. Hosp. Mark. Manag.; Int. J. Hosp. Manag.). He is Editor-in-Chief of
the Spanish Journal of Marketing-ESIC and Associate Editor of The Service Industries Journal. Carlos
Flavi
an is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Alfredo P
erez-Rueda holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration and is Assistant Professor of
Management at the University of Zaragoza (Spain). His research interests include e-commerce, emotions
and purchase decision processes. His studies have been published in international journals such as
Journal of Interactive Marketing, Government information quarterly, Telematics and Informatics;
Journal of Marketing Communications.
Daniel Belanche holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration and is Assistant Professor of Marketing at
the University of Zaragoza (Spain). His research interests include e-commerce and e-government,
adoption of new technologies in services, social identities, emotions and purchase decision processes. His
studies have been published in international journals such as Journal of Interactive Marketing, Journal of
Services Management, Government Information Quarterly, Information and Management, Industrial
Management and Data Systems or Psychology and Marketing.
Luis V. Casal
o holds a Ph.D. in Business Administration and is Associate Professor of Marketing at
the University of Zaragoza (Spain). His research interests include the influence of new technologies on
consumer behavior, and service marketing and management. His studies have been published in
international journals such as Journal of Business Research, International Journal of Electronic
Commerce, Information and Management, Journal of Service Management, International Journal of
Information Management, Psychology and Marketing or Tourism Management.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: [email protected]