Understanding Robo-Advisor Adoption in Emerging Markets: An Empirical Investigation of Utilitarian, Social, and Moderating Factors in Karnataka, India

Main Article Content

Mallikarjun Konade
Prof. Bhupendra Bahadur Tiwari

Abstract

The quick rise of robo-advisory services in FinTech suggests that wealth management will be more accessible and efficient. Due to psychological and societal obstacles, however, adoption is still restricted. The Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) is expanded upon in this study to investigate how perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, subjective norms, and prior exposure to robots influence the adoption of robo-advisors. The study, which uses structural equation modeling (SEM) on survey responses from 150 digitally engaged consumers in Karnataka, India, demonstrates that the impact of perceived usefulness on behavioral intent is entirely mediated by attitude toward robo-advisors. Demographic variables (age and gender) show no significant moderation, but subjective norms have a significant impact on purpose among users unfamiliar with robots. The results emphasize the value of targeted social proof marketing and user-centered design in developing economies, as well as the “utility paradox” that they reveal. The theoretical and administrative ramifications for FinTech companies are examined. 

Article Details

Section

Research Articles

Author Biographies

Mallikarjun Konade

Research Scholar, School of Economics and Commerce, CMR University, Bengaluru.

Prof. Bhupendra Bahadur Tiwari

Director, School of Economics and Commerce, CMR University, Bengaluru.

How to Cite

Mallikarjun Konade, & Bhupendra Bahadur Tiwari. (2026). Understanding Robo-Advisor Adoption in Emerging Markets: An Empirical Investigation of Utilitarian, Social, and Moderating Factors in Karnataka, India . ಅಕ್ಷರಸೂರ್ಯ (AKSHARASURYA), 15(02), 100 to 107. https://aksharasurya.com/index.php/latest/article/view/2003

References

Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., & Flavián, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in FinTech: Understanding robo-advisors’ adoption among customers. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 119(7), 1411–1430. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMDS-08-2018-0368

Boreiko, D., & Massarotti, F. (2020). The impact of investor risk profiles on robo-advised portfolios. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 3, 60. https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00060

Lehmann, D. R., Bos, M. W., & Castelo, N. (2019). Task-dependent algorithm aversion. Journal of Marketing Research, 56(5), 809–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243719851762

D’Acunto, F., Prabhala, N., & Rossi, A. G. (2019). The promises and drawbacks of robo-advising. The Review of Financial Studies, 32(5), 1983–2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/rfs/hhz014

Dietvorst, B. J., Simmons, J. P., & Massey, C. (2015). Algorithm aversion: People erroneously avoid algorithms after seeing them err. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(1), 114–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000033

Hwang, S., & Kim, D. (2022). The influence of perceived intellect on trust and acceptance of robo-advisors. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 38(14), 1321–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1989018

Jung, D., Dorner, V., Glaser, F., & Morana, S. (2018). Robo-advisory: Educating the user through 24/7 automated financial advice. Business & Information Systems Engineering, 60(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12599-017-0517-y

Schepman, A., & Rodway, P. (2020). The general attitudes toward artificial intelligence scale. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 100014. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100014

Venkatesh, V., Thong, J. Y., & Xu, X. (2012). Consumer acceptance and use of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 36(1), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.2307/41410412