Despite advancements in robotic finance, individuals seem stuck and struggling to embrace these novel technologies, highlighting the need to uncover the behavioural reasons behind adoption. Following the literature review, the study drafts a conceptual model integrating insights using ‘diffusion of innovation theory’ and ‘unified theory of acceptance and use of technology’ with behavioural economics. Using mixed ‘partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) and fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (FsQCA)’, 513 valid responses from investors were analyzed to examine the relationships. The results revealed that relative advantage and internal locus of control emerged as the most prominent antecedents for investment intention using robo-advisors. Notably, an integrated framework increased the model’s applicability, predictability and robustness by recognizing behavioural antecedents that affect technology perception and finally behavioural intention. This research offers the significance of behavioural economics in research pertaining to information systems because they had never been explored with respect to fintech adoption in the available literature. Moreover, these biases have not been included in the theoretical models that still assume rational behaviour in the fintech domain and hence present a strong case for novelty.
AbayK. A., BlalockG., & BerhaneG. (2017). Locus of control and technology adoption in developing country agriculture: Evidence from Ethiopia. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 143, 98–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2017.09.012
2.
AbhijithR., & BijulalD. (2025). Decoding investor’s irrationality: A fuzzy AHP exploration of behavioural biases. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629251329995
3.
AgarwalR., & PrasadJ. (1997). The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decision Sciences, 28(3), 557–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
4.
AguileraA., LethiaisV., RalletA., & ProulhacL. (2016). Home-based telework in France: Characteristics, barriers and perspectives. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 92, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.06.021
5.
AhadzadehA. S., WuS. L., OngF. S., & DengR. (2021). The mediating influence of the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology on the relationship between internal health locus of control and mobile health adoption: Cross-sectional study. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 23(12), e28086. https://doi.org/10.2196/preprints.28086
6.
Arenas-ParraM., Rico-PérezH., & Quiroga-GarciaR. (2024). The emerging field of robo advisor: A relational analysis. Heliyon, 10(16), e35946.
7.
BennettB. L., GoldsteinC. M., GathrightE. C., HughesJ. W., & LatnerJ. D. (2017). Internal health locus of control predicts willingness to track health behaviors online and with smartphone applications. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 22(10), 1224–1229. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2017.1317354
8.
BhatiaA., ChandaniA., & ChhatejaJ. (2020). Robo advisory and its potential in addressing the behavioral biases of investors—A qualitative study in Indian context. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 25, 100281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100281
9.
BhatiaA., ChandaniA., AtiqR., MehtaM., & DivekarR. (2021). Artificial intelligence in financial services: A qualitative research to discover robo-advisory services. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 13(5), 632–654. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-10-2020-0199
10.
BhatiaA., ChandaniA., DivekarR., MehtaM., & VijayN. (2022). Digital innovation in wealth management landscape: The moderating role of robo advisors in behavioural biases and investment decision-making. International Journal of Innovation Science, 14(3/4), 693–712. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJIS-10-2020-0245
11.
BornsteinR. F. (1989). Exposure and affect: Overview and meta-analysis of research, 1968–1987. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 265–289.
12.
BotzenW. J., ThepautL. D., & BanerjeeS. (2025). Kahneman’s insights for climate risks: Lessons from bounded rationality, heuristics and biases. Environmental and Resource Economics, 88, 2663–2688.
13.
BozanK., DaveyB., & ParkerK. (2015). Social influence on health IT adoption patterns of the elderly: An institutional theory based use behavior approach. Procedia Computer Science, 63, 517–523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.378
14.
BrennerL., & MeyllT. (2020). Robo-advisors: A substitute for human financial advice?Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Finance, 25, 100275. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbef.2020.100275
15.
CarrollJ. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14(1), 88–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(78)90062-8
16.
ChandaniA., SriharshithaS., BhatiaA., AtiqR., & MehtaM. (2021). Robo-advisory services in India: A study to analyse awareness and perception of millennials. International Journal of Cloud Applications and Computing, 11(4), 152–173. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJCAC.2021100109
17.
ChenL., JiaJ., & WuC. (2023). Factors influencing the behavioral intention to use contactless financial services in the banking industry: An application and extension of UTAUT model. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096709
18.
CohenJ. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1(3), 98–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
19.
D’AcuntoF., PrabhalaN., & RossiA. G. (2019). The promises and pitfalls of robo-advising. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1983–2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz014
20.
DasT., & BanerjeeP. (2023). Peer effects on decision making in complex financial situations. Economic Modelling, 127, 106477. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2023.106477
21.
DavisF. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/249008
22.
DengL., LiD., & ChenJ. (2023). Compatibility as a prerequisite: Research on the factors influencing the continuous use intention of in-vehicle games based on diffusion of innovations theory. Sage Open, 13(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440231217909
23.
FischhoffB., & BroomellS. B. (2020). Judgment and decision making. Annual Review of Psychology, 71(1), 331–355.
24.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.60263120
25.
FongL. H. N., LamL. W., & LawR. (2017). How locus of control shapes intention to reuse mobile apps for making hotel reservations: Evidence from Chinese consumers. Tourism Management, 61, 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2017.03.002
26.
FulkM., GrableJ. E., WatkinsK., & KrugerM. (2023). Who uses robo-advisory services, and who does not?Financial Services Review, 27(2), 173–188. https://doi.org/10.61190/fsr.v27i2.3390
27.
GashiK. (2024). The future of robo-advisors in management. In Advances in logistics, operations, and management science (pp. 35–56). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-2849-1.ch003
28.
GhumanP. (2024). How psychological biases can impact investment decisions. Psychological Bias and Investing. https://www.forbes.com/sites/princeghuman/2024/01/18/how-psychological-biases-can-impact-investment-decisions/
29.
Gil-CorderoE., Ledesma-ChavesP., Arteaga SánchezR., & MarianoA. M. (2024). Crypto-wallets revolution! Key factors driving behavioral intention to adopt the Coinbase Wallet using mixed PLS-SEM/fsQCA methodology in the Spanish environment. International Journal of Bank Marketing, 42(3), 536–570. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-01-2023-0035
30.
GodefroidM.-E., BorghoffV., PlattfautR., & NiehavesB. (2024). Teleworking antecedents: An exploration into availability bias as an impediment. Information Systems and E-Business Management, 22(2), 247–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00652-0
31.
GreckhamerT., FurnariS., FissP. C., & AguileraR. V. (2018). Studying configurations with qualitative comparative analysis: Best practices in strategy and organization research. Strategic Organization, 16(4), 482–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/1476127018786487
32.
GreckhamerT., MisangyiV. F., & FissP. C. (2013). Chapter 3 the two QCAs: From a small-N to a large-N set theoretic approach. InFissP. C., CambréB., & MarxA.(Eds), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 38, pp. 49–75). https://doi.org/10.1108/S0733-558X(2013)0000038007
33.
HairJ. F., RisherJ. J., SarstedtM., & RingleC. M. (2019). When to use and how to report the results of PLS-SEM. European Business Review, 31(1), 2–24. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-11-2018-0203
34.
Hair JrF. J., SarstedtM., HopkinsL., & G. KuppelwieserV. (2014). Partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM): An emerging tool in business research. European Business Review, 26(2), 106–121. https://doi.org/10.1108/EBR-10-2013-0128
35.
HodgeF. D., MendozaK. I., & SinhaR. K. (2021). The effect of humanizing robo‐advisors on investor judgments. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(1), 770–792. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12641
36.
HoffmanD. L., NovakT. P., & SchlosserA. E. (2003). Locus of control, web use, and consumer attitudes toward internet regulation. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 22(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1509/jppm.22.1.41.17628
37.
HongX., PanL., GongY., & ChenQ. (2023). Robo-advisors and investment intention: A perspective of value-based adoption. Information & Management, 60(6), 103832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2023.103832
38.
HsiaJ.-W. (2016). The effects of locus of control on university students’ mobile learning adoption. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 28(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-015-9103-8
39.
HuangM.-H., & RustR. T. (2018). Artificial intelligence in service. Journal of Service Research, 21(2), 155–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670517752459
40.
JainN., RamanT. V., & BhardwajG. N. (2023). Do behavioural biases drive adoption of digital banking services? The moderating role of user type. Global Business Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/09721509231160865
41.
JansenJ., & LamT. J. G. M. (2012). The role of communication in improving udder health. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice, 28(2), 363–379. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cvfa.2012.03.003
42.
JindalS., JainH., DhupperR., KalraA., & ZameerQ. A. (2025). Internal locus of control and attitudes as determinants of responsible environmental behaviour in India. Discover Sustainability, 6(1), 1141. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-025-02018-7
43.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.
44.
KhannaP., & JhaS. (2024). AI-based digital product ‘robo-advisory’ for financial investors. Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective. https://doi.org/10.1177/09722629241298399
45.
KlineR. B. (2023). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Publications.
46.
KockN. (2015). Common method bias in PLS-SEM: A full collinearity assessment approach. International Journal of e-Collaboration, 11(4), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijec.2015100101
47.
KumariN., & BiswasA. (2024). Money at my fingertips: Decoding the role of referent network size and financial knowledge in reinforcing continuance intention of m-payment services. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 34(4), 267–298. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2024.2362970
48.
KuranT., & SunsteinC. R. (1998). Availability cascades and risk regulation. Stanford Law Review, 51, 683.
49.
MamidalaV., KumariP., & SinghD. (2024). Should I invest or not? Investigating the role of biases and status quo. Qualitative Research in Financial Markets, 16(3), 423–447. https://doi.org/10.1108/QRFM-12-2022-0198
50.
MingollaC., HuddersL., VanwesenbeeckI., & ClaereboutE. (2019). Towards a biased mindset: An extended theory of planned behaviour framework to predict farmers’ intention to adopt a sustainable manage control approach. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 169, 104695. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104695
51.
MitraA., & DeA. (2025). Empowering financial choices: How financial literacy and behavioral bias shape access to financial products and services. International Journal of Accounting & Information Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJAIM-10-2024-0412
52.
MuellerS. L., & ThomasA. S. (2001). Culture and entrepreneurial potential. Journal of Business Venturing, 16(1), 51–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0883-9026(99)00039-7
53.
NgT. W. H., SorensenK. L., & EbyL. T. (2006). Locus of control at work: A meta‐analysis. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(8), 1057–1087. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.416
54.
NguyenT. P. L., ChewL. W., MuthaiyahS., TehB. H., & OngT. S. (2023). Factors influencing acceptance of robo-advisors for wealth management in Malaysia. Cogent Engineering, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311916.2023.2188992
55.
NijanandiD., & TiwariB. K. (2026). Neural and structural pathways to financial well-being: Dual-staged SEM–ANN analysis of financial risk tolerance and internal locus as mediators. Journal of Financial Services Marketing, 31(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-025-00327-6
56.
NisulaA.-M., & OlanderH. (2025). The role of internal locus of control and social competence in knowledge worker innovativeness. European Journal of Innovation Management, 28(11), 131–153. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJIM-05-2024-0574
57.
PappasI. O., & WoodsideA. G. (2021). Fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA): Guidelines for research practice in Information systems and marketing. International Journal of Information Management, 58, 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102310
58.
PellegriniM., & TagliabueM. (2024). An overview of psychological factors in mobility choices: The impact on pro-environmental behavior. Discover Sustainability, 5(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00372-6
59.
PodsakoffP. M., MacKenzieS. B., LeeJ.-Y., & PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
60.
RaginC. C. (2006). Set relations in social research: Evaluating their consistency and coverage. Political Analysis, 14(3), 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpj019
61.
RautR. K., DasN., & KumarR. (2018). Extending the theory of planned behaviour: impact of past behavioural biases on the investment decision of Indian investors. Asian Journal of Business and Accounting, 11(1), 265–291. https://doi.org/10.22452/ajba.vol11no1.9
62.
RihouxB., & RaginC. (2009). Configurational comparative methods: Qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Sage Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452226569
63.
RihouxB., Álamos-ConchaP., & LobeB. (2021). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). InOnwuegbuzieA. J. & JohnsonR. B.(Eds.), The Routledge reviewer’s guide to mixed methods analysis (1st ed., pp. 185–197). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203729434-17
64.
Ritika, & KishorN. (2022). Development and validation of behavioral biases scale: A SEM approach. Review of Behavioral Finance, 14(2), 237–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/RBF-05-2020-0087
65.
SaariU. A., DambergS., FrömblingL., & RingleC. M. (2021). Sustainable consumption behavior of Europeans: The influence of environmental knowledge and risk perception on environmental concern and behavioral intention. Ecological Economic, 189, 107155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2021.107155
66.
SarinA. B., & ChowdhuryJ. K. (2017). An understanding of role of heuristic on investment decisions. International Review of Business and Finance, 9(1), 57–61.
67.
SarstedtM., HairJ. F., CheahJ.-H., BeckerJ.-M., & RingleC. M. (2019). How to specify, estimate, and validate higher-order constructs in PLS-SEM. Australasian Marketing Journal, 27(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ausmj.2019.05.003
68.
SarstedtM., RingleC. M., & HairJ. F. (2021). Partial least squares structural equation modeling. In Handbook of market research (pp. 587–632). Springer.
69.
SchneiderC. Q. (2018). Realists and idealists in QCA. Political Analysis, 26(2), 246–254. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2017.45
70.
SchneiderC. Q., & WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418. https://doi.org/10.1163/156913210X12493538729793
71.
SchreierM., & PrüglR. (2008). Extending lead‐user theory: Antecedents and consequences of consumers’ lead usernessJournal of Product Innovation Management, 25(4), 331–346. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00305.x
72.
ShanS., UmarM., & MirzaN. (2022). Can robo advisors expedite carbon transitions? Evidence from automated funds. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 180, 121694. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2022.121694
73.
SladeE. L., DwivediY. K., PiercyN. C., & WilliamsM. D. (2015). Modeling consumers’ adoption intentions of remote mobile payments in the United Kingdom: Extending UTAUT with innovativeness, risk, and trust. Psychology & Marketing, 32(8), 860–873. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20823
74.
SobhanmaneshF., BeheshtiA., NouriN., ChapparoN. M., RajS., & GeorgeR. A. (2023). A cognitive model for technology adoption. Algorithms, 16(3), 155. https://doi.org/10.3390/a16030155
75.
SommerL. (2011). The theory of planned behaviour and the impact of past behaviour. International Business & Economics Research Journal (IBER), 10(1). https://doi.org/10.19030/iber.v10i1.930
76.
Statista. (2024). Empowering people with data. https://www.statista.com/
77.
SunsteinC. R. (2005). The availability heuristic, intuitive cost-benefit analysis, and climate change. Climatic Change, 77, 195–210.
78.
Thi VoK. H. (2025). Augmented reality, virtual reality, and mixed reality: A pragmatic view from diffusion of innovation. International Journal of Architectural Computing, 23(1), 27–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/14780771241254632
79.
TsengT. H., WangY.-M., LinH.-H., LinS., WangY.-S., & TsaiT.-H. (2022). Relationships between locus of control, theory of planned behavior, and cyber entrepreneurial intention: The moderating role of cyber entrepreneurship education. The International Journal of Management Education, 20(3), 100682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijme.2022.100682
80.
TverskyA., & KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131.
81.
VenkateshV., MorrisM. G., DavisG. B., & DavisF. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly, 27(3), 425–478. https://doi.org/10.2307/30036540
82.
VenkateshV., Thong JamesY. L., and XuX. (2016). Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. Journal of the Association for Information Systems, 17(5). https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428
83.
WelchI. (2022). The wisdom of the Robinhood crowd. The Journal of Finance, 77(3), 1489–1527. https://doi.org/10.1111/jofi.13128
84.
WoodsideA. G. (2014). Embrace•perform•model: Complexity theory, contrarian case analysis, and multiple realities. Journal of Business Research, 67(12), 2495–2503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2014.07.006
85.
YehH.-C., YuM.-C., LiuC.-H., & HuangC.-I. (2023). Robo-advisor based on unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 35(4), 962–979. https://doi.org/10.1108/APJML-07-2021-0493
86.
ZajoncR. B. (1968). Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(2, Pt 2), 1–27.
87.
ZhouY., LiJ., AdelG., & LiuC. (2024). Examination of the adoption intention of new energy vehicles from the perspective of functional attributes and media richness. Heliyon, 10(4), e25897. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25897
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
