Advisors risk damaging trust when clients turn to AI for validation, study suggests

Financial advisors could face unexpected relationship challenges as artificial intelligence becomes a routine tool for clients seeking validation, according to new academic research.

A study due to be published in the journal Computers in Human Behavior suggests that when clients consult AI systems for advice, even as a supplementary step, human advisors may react negatively, potentially undermining engagement and long-term trust. The findings point to emerging interpersonal risks for advisors as AI adoption accelerates across financial planning and wealth management.

The research, conducted by Gerri Spassova and Mauricio Palmeira, explored how professional advisors respond when clients seek a second opinion from AI compared with another human expert. Across multiple experiments, advisors consistently showed reduced willingness to work with clients who had turned to AI tools.

Client use of digital tools is rising rapidly, but the study indicates that technology-driven validation can be perceived as a subtle challenge to an advisor’s competence and expertise. In turn, this perception may influence how much effort or motivation an advisor invests in the relationship.

One key insight is that the negative reaction was not limited to situations where clients sought alternative recommendations. Even when AI was used purely to gather background information or confirm existing guidance, advisors still reported lower motivation levels compared with scenarios in which clients consulted another person.

This dynamic highlights an emerging behavioral dimension of advice delivery. While financial advisors often focus on portfolio construction, tax efficiency or retirement modelling, the emotional and relational context of advice remains central. Technology adoption by clients may therefore require a shift in how advisors manage expectations and communicate value.

AI vs. human

The research – already available at Science Direct - also suggests that professional identity plays a crucial role in shaping reactions. Advisors may view AI systems as fundamentally less capable than trained human specialists. As a result, when clients treat algorithmic output as equivalent to expert judgement, advisors may interpret this as a form of implicit comparison — or even a lack of confidence in their skills.

For advisory firms, this creates a strategic dilemma. On one hand, encouraging clients to engage with digital tools can improve efficiency and enhance financial literacy. On the other, unchecked reliance on AI-generated insights could unintentionally weaken the advisor-client bond that underpins recurring revenue models and long-term retention.

The study’s findings also carry implications for practice management and client segmentation. Advisors working with highly tech-engaged investors — particularly younger cohorts comfortable using chatbots or generative AI — may need to adapt their service models. Proactive conversations about how AI should be used alongside professional advice could help avoid misunderstandings and maintain trust.

Another consideration is the potential impact on advisor wellbeing and productivity. If advisors feel their expertise is being questioned, even indirectly, motivation may decline over time. This could influence responsiveness, depth of planning and willingness to go beyond core service expectations — factors that ultimately affect client outcomes.

Importantly, the research does not argue against the use of AI in financial decision-making. Instead, it highlights the interpersonal costs that can arise when new technologies are integrated into established advisory relationships without clear boundaries or shared understanding.

As AI tools become more sophisticated and accessible, financial advisors may need to reposition their value proposition. Emphasising judgement, behavioural coaching and personalised strategy — areas where human expertise remains difficult to replicate — could help reinforce differentiation in an increasingly algorithm-driven landscape.

The study underscores that the future of advice will not be shaped solely by technology capabilities, but also by how advisors and clients navigate the psychological and relational consequences of using them.