新型態金融服務不斷挑戰傳統金融思維。隨著人工智慧、機器學習、大數據應用的技術發展，使得數位金融科技 (Fintech) 更是一日千里，對金融業以及消費者行為模式都產生重大的變革。
其中使用理財機器人 (Robo-Advisors) 的消費者人數與投資金額比例近年來更是節節攀升，許多消費者選擇以理財機器人取代傳統的人類理專服務。藉由理財機器人的特性，節省許多寶貴的時間並透過理財機器人獲得更全面性、即時性的投資理財訊息做為決策時的參考。
然而一個創新的服務模式，消費者的接受度是新服務能否成功推展的必要條件。因此本研究目的在於找出影響消費者採用理財服務機器人的決定因素。為達此研究目的，本研究以問卷調查方式進行，以科技接受模式理論 (TAM，Technology Acceptance Model) 為研究基礎架構，並加入個人創新性、人格特質和抗拒變革的程度為外部變數，試圖了解受訪者對機器人理財的偏好。
資料分析結果顯示，消費者對於理財服務採用理財機器人的行為意向相當高。三個針對消費者人格特質的外部變數都呈現顯著水平。因此建議銀行業或理財服務金融機構應加速引進理財機器人，進而提升國內金融理財服務技術水準。
Emerging financial services continue to challenge traditional financial thinking. With the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the application of big data technology, Fintech change constants innovation at tremendous speed. It has revolutionized the financial industry and consumer behavior patterns.
In recent years, the proportion of consumers and money invested through financial robots has steadily increased. Many consumers replace traditional human management services with Robo-Advisors. Time can be saved in investment strategy and decision making with the characteristics of Robo-Advisors, more comprehensive and timely investment and wealth management information can be obtained through Robo-Advisors.
However, with an innovative service model, consumer acceptance is a necessary condition for successful new services. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the key factors affecting consumers' adoption of financial services robots. For the purpose of this study, this study conducted a questionnaire survey, based on the Technology Acceptance Model theory as the research infrastructure, and added the personal innovativeness, personality traits and resistance to change as external variables in an attempt to understand respondents’ preference for Robo-Advisors.
The data analysis results show that consumers' behaviors of using financial robots for financial services are quite high. The three external variables for consumer personality traits are all significant. Therefore, it is recommended that the banking industry or financial services institutions should accelerate the introduction of financial robots, thereby improving the level of financial management services.

Emerging financial services continue to challenge traditional financial thinking. With the development of artificial intelligence, machine learning, and the application of big data technology, Fintech change constants innovation at tremendous speed. It has revolutionized the financial industry and consumer behavior patterns.
In recent years, the proportion of consumers and money invested through financial robots has steadily increased. Many consumers replace traditional human management services with Robo-Advisors. Time can be saved in investment strategy and decision making with the characteristics of Robo-Advisors, more comprehensive and timely investment and wealth management information can be obtained through Robo-Advisors.
However, with an innovative service model, consumer acceptance is a necessary condition for successful new services. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to identify the key factors affecting consumers' adoption of financial services robots. For the purpose of this study, this study conducted a questionnaire survey, based on the Technology Acceptance Model theory as the research infrastructure, and added the personal innovativeness, personality traits and resistance to change as external variables in an attempt to understand respondents’ preference for Robo-Advisors.
The data analysis results show that consumers' behaviors of using financial robots for financial services are quite high. The three external variables for consumer personality traits are all significant. Therefore, it is recommended that the banking industry or financial services institutions should accelerate the introduction of financial robots, thereby improving the level of financial management services.

中文文獻
王紹宇，2016。智能理財技術崛起對美國及台灣財富管理產業的衝擊。國立臺灣大學財務金融組未出版碩士論文。
危芷燕，2009。以科技接受模式探討使用者接受電子帳單呈遞支付服務的行為意圖。國立交通大學管理科學研究所未出版碩士論文。
李偉暄，2013。個人創新程度與消費者科技接受意圖關係之研究--以平板電腦為例。國立中央大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
沈宗奇、賴俊廷，2013。網路社群忠誠度影響因素之研究：網路外部性與科技受模式之整合模型。電子商務研究，第11卷第4期：357-376。
林奇伯，2017。真人 vs. 機器人當『人機飯碗大戰』成真，你得建立無法取代價值！，Cheers，第196期，Cheers天下出版社。
林靜儀、劉昌佑，2013。個人創新和知覺樂趣性對智慧型手機使用者的態度和行為意圖之影響。國立屏東商業技術學院學報，第15期：179-206。
金融監督管理委員會，2016。金融科技發展策略白皮書。
洪旗能，2018。與機器人共舞-以科技接受模式探討銀行行員與機器人協同工作的接受因素。國立臺灣科技大學企業管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
孫一仕、施祖琪與蕭俊傑譯，King, Brett 著，2013。BANK 3.0—銀行轉型未來式，台北：財團法人台灣金融研訓院。
孫一仕、周羣英、林凱雄譯，King, Brett 著，2018。Bank4.0：金融常在，銀行不再？。台北：財團法人台灣金融研訓院。
許淙茗，2017。理財機器人之商業創新模式—以W公司為例。國立臺灣大學商學研究所未出版碩士論文。
曾建銘，1996。影響企業採用電腦網路的因素及其採用後的效益研究。淡江大學資訊管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
楊靜霓，2017。影響理財機器人採用意願關鍵因素之研究。中華大學科技管理研究所未出版碩士論文。
道口貸，2018。全球智能投顧平台。http://p2p.daokoudai.com/2016047588.html。搜尋日期：2018年05月10日。
鉅亨網，2018。台灣理財機器人。https://news.cnyes.com/news/id/3941080。搜尋日期：2018年04月05日。
趙永芬譯，Jellison, Jerald M. 著，1996。頑石也點頭：戰勝辦公室拒變症。台北：天下文化。
簡宏江，2000。論抗拒變革的管理。育達研究叢刊。第一期：32-46。
藍弋丰，2016。美國銀行業紛紛縮減分行規模，數位服務取代人力。http://finance.technews.tw/2016/05/06/us-banks-reduced-the-size-of-branches-digital-substituted-service-personnel/。搜尋日期：2018年04月18日。

英文文獻
Adams, Dennis A., R. Ryan Nelson and Peter A. Todd (1992), “Perceived Usefulness, Ease of Use, and Usage of Information Technology: A Replication,” MIS Quarterly, 16 (2), 227-247.
Agarwal, Ritu and Jayesh Prasad (1998), “A Conceptual and Operational Definition of Personal Innovativeness in the Domain of Information Technology,” Information Systems Research, 9 (2), 204-215.
Allport, Gordon Willand (1937), Personality: A Psychological Interpretation, Oxford: Holt.
Anthony, L. M., M. C. Clarke, and S. J. Anderson (2000), “Technophobia and Personality Subtypes in a Sample of South African University Students,” Computers in Human Behavior, 16 (1), 31-44.
Bollen, Kenneth A., and Robert A. Stine (1992), “Bootstrapping Goodness-of-Fit Measures in Structural Equation Models,” Sociological Methods & Research, 21 (2), 205-229.
Carnall, Collin A. (1990), Managing Change, NY: Prentice Hall.
Chin, Wynne W. (1998), “Commentary: Issues and Opinion on Structural Equation Modeling,” Management Information Systems Quarterly, 22 (1), 7-16.
Chin, Wynne W., and Peter A. Todd (1995), “On the Use, Usefulness and Ease of Use of Structural Equation Modeling in MIS Research: A Note of Caution,” MIS Quarterly, 19 (2), 237-246.
Chin, Wynne W., and Peter R. Newsted (1999), “Structural Equation Modeling Analysis with Small Samples Using Partial Least Squares,” Statistical Strategies for Small Sample Research, 1 (1), 307-341.
Chin, Wynne W., Barbara L. Marcolin, and Peter R. Newsted (2003), “A Partial Least Squares Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Measuring Interaction Effects: Results From a Monte Carlo Simulation Study and an Electronic-Mail Emotion/Adoption Study,” Information Systems Research, 14 (2), 189-217.
Clarke, Liz (1994), The Essence of Change, NY: Prentice Hall.
Colquitt, Jason A., John R. Hollenbeck, Daniel R. Ilgen, Jeffrey A. Lepine, and Lori Sheppard (2002), “Computer-Assisted Communication and Team Decision-Making Performance: The Moderating Effect of Openness to Experience”, Journal of Applied Psychology, 87 (2), 402-410.
Connor, Patrick E., and Linda K. Lake (1994), Managing Organizational Change, CT: Greenwood.
Coombs, Fred S. (1980), “The Bases of Noncompliance with a Policy,” Policy Studies Journal, 8 (6), 885-892.
Davis, Fred D. (1985), “A Technology Acceptance Model for Empirically Testing New End-User Information Systems: Theory and Results,” Master's thesis, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Davis, Fred D. (1989), “Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technologies,” MIS Quarterly, 13 (3), 319-340.
Davis, Fred D., Richard P. Bagozzi, and Paul R. Warshaw (1989), “User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models,” Management Science, 35 (8), 982-1003.
Fishbein, Martin and Icek Ajzen (1975), Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior: An Introduction to Theory and Research. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley.
FORECAST: Global Assets Under Management by Robo-Advisors (2016), Working Paper, NY: Business Insider.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error: Algebra and Statistics,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (3), 382-388.
Gallivan, Michael J. (2004), “Examining IT Professional’s Adaptation to Technological Change: The Influence of Gender and Personal Attributes,” The DATA BASE for Advances in Information Systems, 35 (3), 28-49.
Gatewood, Robert D. and Hubert S. Feild (1998), Human Resource Selection, New York: Dryden Press.
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1990), “An Alternative Description of Personality: The Big Five Factor Structure,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59 (6), 1216-1229.
Goldberg, Lewis R. (1993), “The Structure of Phenotypic Personality Traits,” American Psychologists, 48 (1), 26-34.
Guilford, Joy Paul (1965), Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education, 4th ed., New York: McGraw Hill.
Hair, Joseph F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., and Black, W. C. (1998), Multivariate Data Analysis, Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Hong, Weiyin, James Y.I. Thong, Wai-Man Wong, and Kar-Yan Tam (2002), “Determinants of User Acceptance of Digital Libraries: An Empirical Examination of Individual Differences and System Characteristics,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 18 (3), 97-124.
Hulland, John (1999), “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies,” Strategic Management Journal, 20 (2), 195-204.
Jashapara, Ashok and Wei-Chun Tai (2006), “Understanding the Complexity of Human Characteristics on E-Learning Systems: An Integrated Study of Dynamic Individual Differences on User Perceptions of Ease of Use,” Knowledge Management Research & Practice, 4 (3), 227-239.
John, Oliver P. and Sanjay Srivastava (1999), “The Big Five Trait Taxonomy: History, Measurement, and Theoretical Perspectives,” in Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, Pervin, Lawrence A. and Oliver P. John (1999), eds., NY: The Guilford Press, 102-138.
Judson, Arnold S. (1991), Changing Behavior in Organizations: Minimizing Resistance to Change, Oxford: Blackwell.
Kassarjian, Harold H. (1971), “Personality and Consumer Behavior: A Review,” Journal of Marketing Research, 8 (4), 409-418.
Kaya, Orcun and Jan Schildbach (2017). “Robo-Advice–A True Innovation in Asset Management,” Working Paper, Frankfurt, Germany: Deutsche Bank AG.
King, Brett (2012), Bank 3.0：Why Banking Is No Longer Somewhere You Go, But Something You Do, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.
King, Brett (2018), Bank 4.0: Banking Everywhere, Never at a Bank, Singapore: John Wiley & Sons Singapore Pte. Ltd.
Klein, Katherine J. and Joann Speer Sorra (1996), “The Challenge of Innovation Implementation,” Academy of Management Review, 21 (4), 1055-1081.
Kleinmuntz, Benjamin (1967), Personality Measurement: An Introduction, Homewood: Dorsey Press.
Korukonda, Appa Rao (2007), “Differences that Do Matter: A Dialectic Analysis of Individual Characteristics and Personality Dimensions Contributing to Computer Anxiety,” Computers in Human Behavior, 23 (4), 1921-1942.
Kotler, Philip (2003), Marketing Management, 11th ed., NJ: Prentice Hall Inc.
Lin, Judy Chuan-Chuan, and Hsipeng Lu (2000), “Towards an Understanding of the Behavioral Intention to Use a Web Site,” International Journal of Information Management, 20 (3), 197-208.
Manzoni, Jean- François and Albert A. Angehrn (1997), “Understanding Organizational Dynamics of IT-enabled Change: A Multimedia Simulation Approach,” Journal of Management Information Systems, 14 (3), 109-140.
Markus, M. Lynne (1983), “Power, Politics, and MIS Implementation,” Communications of the ACM, 26 (6), 430-444.
Maurer, Rick (1996), “Put Resistance to Work for You”, Human Resource Magazine, 41 (4), 75-78.
McCrae, Robert R. (1994), “Openness to Experience: Expanding The Boundaries of Factor V,” European Journal of Personality, 8 (4), 251-272.
McCrae, Robert R. (1996), “Social Consequences of Experiential Openness,” Psychological Bulletin, 120 (3), 323-337.
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Jr. Costa (1987), “Validation of the Five-Factor Model of Personality across Instruments and Observers,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 81-90.
McCrae, Robert R. and Paul T. Jr. Costa (1997), “Personality Trait Structure as a Human Universal,” American Psychologist, 52 (5), 509-516.
Moon, Ji-Won and Young-Gul Kim (2001), “Extending the TAM for a World-Wide-Web Context,” Information and Management, 38 (4), 217-230.
Norman, Warren T. (1963), “Toward an Adequate Taxonomy of Personality Attributes: Replicated Factor Structure in Peer Nomination Personality Ratings,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (6), 574-583.
Nov, Oded, and Chen Ye (2008), “Users' Personality and Perceived Ease of Use of Digital Libraries: The Case for Resistance to Change,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 59 (5), 845-851.
Nunnally, Jum (1978), Psychometric Methods, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Oreg, Shaul (2003), “Resistance to Change: Developing an Individual Differences Measure,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (4), 680-693.
Oreg, Shaul (2006), “Personality, Context, and Resistance to Organizational Change,” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 15 (1), 73-101.
Oreg, Shaul and Oded Nov (2008), “Exploring Motivations for Contributing to Open Source Initiatives: The Rules of Contribution Context and Personal Values,” Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (5), 2055-2073.
Peabody, Dean (1987), “Selecting Representative Trait Adjectives,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 59-71.
Pratt, R. and K. Chudoba (2006), “Is Extraversion the Next Predictor of System Adoption? Effects of Personality Traits on System Acceptance,” Paper presented at the Academy of Management Meeting, Atlanta, GA.
Reger, Rhonda K., John V. Mullane, Loren T. Gustafson, and Samuel M. Demarie (1994), “Creating Earthquakes to Change Organizational Mindsets,” Academy of Management Perspectives, 8 (4), 31-43.
Robbins, Stephen P. (2001), Organizational Behavior, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Rogers, Everett M. (1962), Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.
Scott, William G. and Terence R. Mitchell (1972), Organization Theory: A Structure and Behavioral Analysis, Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin.
Self-Service in Wealth Management: Remaining Competitive in a Fast- Changing World (2014), Working Paper, Paris, France: Capgemini.
Silverman, Stanley B. and David V. Day (1989), “Personality and Job Performance: Evidence of Incremental Validity,” Personnel Psychology, 42 (1), 25-36.
Stewart, Jim (1996), Managing Change through Training and Development, London: Kogan Page.
Strebel, Paul. (1996), “Why Do Employees Resist Change?” Harvard Business Review, 74 (3), 86-92.
Thatcher, Jason Bennett and Pamela L. Perrewé (2002), “An Empirical Examination of Individual Traits as Antecedents to Computer Anxiety and Computer Self-Efficacy,” MIS Quarterly, 26 (4), 381-396.
Van Dam, Karen (2005), “Employee Attitudes toward Job Changes: An Application and Extension of Rusbult and Farrell's Investment Model,” Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 78 (2), 253-272.
Venkatesh, Viswanath, and Michael G. Morris (2000), “Why Don't Men Ever Stop to Ask for Directions? Gender, Social Influence, and Their Role in Technology Acceptance and Usage Behavior,” MIS Quarterly, 24 (1), 115-139.
Vincent, Gauthier, Vijay Laknidhi, Phillip Klein, and Rohit Gera (2015), “Robo Advisors: Capitalizing on a Growing Opportunity,” Working Paper, London, UK: Deloitte.
Watson G. (1973), “Resistance to Change,” in Processes and Phenomena of Social Change, Zaltman, Gerald, ed, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Whitaker, Patrick (1993), Managing Change in Schools, Pennsylvania, Philadelphia: Open University Press.
Wiggins, Jerry S (1996), The Five-Factor Model of Personality: Theoretical Perspectives, NY: The Guilford Press.
Yang, Ching-Chow (2005), “The Refined Kano’s Model and Its Application,” Total Quality Management, 16 (10), 1127 - 1137.
Zaltman, Gerald and Robert Duncan (1977), Strategies for Planned Change, Toronto: Wiley.
Zander, U. and Bruce Kogut (1992), “Knowledge of the Firm, Combinative Capabilities, and the Replication of Technology,” Organization Science, 3 (3), 383-397.