TALKING TO THE MARKET: FIELD EVIDENCE ON AI CHATBOTS, DIGITAL ADVICE UTILIZATION, AND RETAIL TRADING OUTCOMES
AUTHORS:
Mentor
Affiliation
Department of Management Studies, Pragati University, Surampalem, Andhra Pradesh, India
DOI: 
SHARE THIS ARTICLE
CC BY 4.0 License:
This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
DOWNLOAD ARTICLE
REVIEW REPORT
CITE THIS ARTICLE
Abstract
Background: Conversational AI chatbots are increasingly embedded in retail brokerage applications, yet empirical evidence on how chatbot-based advice influences investor behaviour in real-world trading contexts remains limited.
Purpose: This study investigates whether perceived chatbot competence and trust predict digital advice utilisation, and whether such utilisation is associated with self-reported trading outcomes, with financial literacy examined as a moderator.
Uniqueness: The study extends prior research by focusing on investor–chatbot interaction and actual utilisation of chatbot guidance among active retail investors, rather than evaluating algorithmic stock-picking performance or purely conceptual advisory models.
Methodology: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 300 active retail investors who had recently interacted with AI-enabled investment chatbots. Multiple regression models were used to test direct relationships and the moderation effect of financial literacy.
Findings: Perceived competence (B≈0.32, p<0.001) and trust (B≈0.32, p<0.001) are independently associated with higher digital advice utilisation (R²=0.306). Digital advice utilisation is positively associated with trading outcomes (B≈0.32, p≈0.02). Financial literacy also shows a positive association with trading outcomes (B≈0.30, p≈0.03), while the utilisation×literacy interaction is not statistically significant.
Implications: The findings suggest that brokerage chatbots may support more disciplined investing behaviour, though causal interpretation is limited by the survey design. Future work should integrate chatbot interaction logs with objective brokerage trading records to evaluate long-run behavioural and performance effects.
Keywords: AI chatbots; Digital advice; Retail investors; Stock trading; Financial literacy; Trading outcomes
Purpose: This study investigates whether perceived chatbot competence and trust predict digital advice utilisation, and whether such utilisation is associated with self-reported trading outcomes, with financial literacy examined as a moderator.
Uniqueness: The study extends prior research by focusing on investor–chatbot interaction and actual utilisation of chatbot guidance among active retail investors, rather than evaluating algorithmic stock-picking performance or purely conceptual advisory models.
Methodology: A cross-sectional survey was conducted with 300 active retail investors who had recently interacted with AI-enabled investment chatbots. Multiple regression models were used to test direct relationships and the moderation effect of financial literacy.
Findings: Perceived competence (B≈0.32, p<0.001) and trust (B≈0.32, p<0.001) are independently associated with higher digital advice utilisation (R²=0.306). Digital advice utilisation is positively associated with trading outcomes (B≈0.32, p≈0.02). Financial literacy also shows a positive association with trading outcomes (B≈0.30, p≈0.03), while the utilisation×literacy interaction is not statistically significant.
Implications: The findings suggest that brokerage chatbots may support more disciplined investing behaviour, though causal interpretation is limited by the survey design. Future work should integrate chatbot interaction logs with objective brokerage trading records to evaluate long-run behavioural and performance effects.
Keywords: AI chatbots; Digital advice; Retail investors; Stock trading; Financial literacy; Trading outcomes
Keywords
Article Information
PUBLICATION DETAILS
Review Type:
Double-Blind Peer Review
License:
CC BY-NC 4.0
Volume/Issue:
Volume 02, Issue 11
Review Rounds:
2
Article Type:
Research Article
Publication Date:
Nov 09 2026
Article Metrics
Article Views
7
PDF Downloads
0
HOW TO CITE
Copy
Kumar, G. (2026). Talking to the Market: Field Evidence on AI Chatbots, Digital Advice Utilization, and Retail Trading Outcomes. International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, 02(11), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i11.013
Kumar, G.Prasanna. "Talking to the Market: Field Evidence on AI Chatbots, Digital Advice Utilization, and Retail Trading Outcomes." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology, vol. 02, no. 11, 2026, pp. 1-9. doi:https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i11.013.
Kumar, G.Prasanna. "Talking to the Market: Field Evidence on AI Chatbots, Digital Advice Utilization, and Retail Trading Outcomes." International Journal of Science, Strategic Management and Technology 02, no. 11 (2026): 1-9. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.55041/ijsmt.v2i11.013.
References
- Pelster, M., & Val, J. (2024). Can ChatGPT assist in picking stocks? Finance Research Letters, 59, 104786. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2023.104786
- Schneider, C. J., & Yilmaz, Y. (2025). Stock portfolio selection based on risk appetite: Evidence from ChatGPT. Finance Research Letters, Advance online publication, 107517. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.frl.2025.107517
- Romanko, O., Narayan, A., & Kwon, R. H. (2023). ChatGPT-based investment portfolio selection. Operations Research Forum, 4, 91. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43069-023-00277-6
- Oehler, A., Horn, M., & Wendt, S. (2022). Investor characteristics and their impact on the decision to use a robo-advisor. Journal of Financial Services Research, 62(1), 91–125. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10693-021-00367-8
- Back, C., Morana, S., & Spann, M. (2023). When do robo-advisors make us better investors? The impact of social design elements on investor behavior. Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 103, 101984. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2023.101984
- Scherer, B., & Lehner, S. (2025). What drives robo-advice? Journal of Empirical Finance, 80, 101574. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2024.101574
- Lisauskienė, N., Darskuvienė, V., & Butkus, M. (2024). Passive vs active robo-advisors and disposition effect: Moderating role of gender and financial literacy. Baltic Journal of Economics, 24(2), 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/1406099X.2024.2422673
- Lourenço, C. J. S., Dellaert, B. G. C., & Donkers, B. (2020). Whose algorithm says so? The relationships between type of firm, perceptions of trust and expertise, and the acceptance of financial robo-advice. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 49, 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intmar.2019.10.003
- Ashfaq, M., Yun, J., Yu, S., & Loureiro, S. M. C. (2020). I, Chatbot: Modeling the determinants of users’ satisfaction and continuance intention of AI-powered service agents. Telematics and Informatics, 54, 101473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2020.101473
- Misischia, C. V., Poecze, F., & Strauss, C. (2022). Chatbots in customer service: Their relevance and impact on service quality. Procedia Computer Science, 201, 421–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2022.03.055
Ethics and Compliance
✓ All ethical standards met
This article has undergone plagiarism screening and double-blind peer review. Editorial policies have been followed. Authors retain copyright under CC BY-NC 4.0 license. The research complies with ethical standards and institutional guidelines.
Indexed In
Similar Articles
Enhancing Math Learning for Students with Reading Difficulties: Systematic Review on the Strategies of Teacher
(2026)
DOI: 10.55041/ijsmt.v2i4.448
AI-Enhanced Blockchain-Based Voting System for Secure, Transparent, And Fraud-Resistant Elections
(2026)
DOI: 10.55041/ijsmt.v2i5.152
Instagram Fake Account Detection Based on Machine Learning
(2026)
DOI: 10.55041/ijsmt.v2i3.141
Previous Article
