Diana Bustamente, UNAB
Abstract: Although robo-advisors are promoted as low-cost tools to expand retail participation in financial markets, existing evidence is largely observational and focuses on current users, leaving limited causal evidence on their effect during the initial investment decision. This study addresses this gap through two pre-registered randomized controlled experiments conducted on Prolific in 2026 (Study 1: N = 605; Study 2: N = 551). Participants were randomly assigned to a robo-advisor, human advisor, or control condition to examine investment intention, product selection, and portfolio diversification. The results show that exposure to a robo-advisor reduces willingness to invest and decreases interest in equity investments, while human advisors increase interest in fixed-income products. No evidence is found that robo-advisors improve portfolio diversification, and financial sophistication amplifies rather than attenuates robo-advisor aversion. These findings suggest that barriers to adoption arise during the consideration stage, helping explain why observational studies report positive outcomes among existing users. The study provides causal evidence for the fintech adoption literature and underscores the importance of communication strategies and choice architecture in the design of automated financial advisory services. Future research should investigate the psychological mechanisms driving robo-advisor aversion and evaluate interventions to reduce these barriers in real-world investment contexts.
