Advisors Feel Offended When Clients Seek AI Second Opinions, Monash Research Finds

Financial and travel advisors are less motivated to work with clients who use AI to obtain a second opinion, feeling offended at being placed in the same category as an AI system, according to new research from Monash University.

The study, published in Computers in Human Behavior, was conducted by the Monash Business School in collaboration with the MUMA College of Business at the University of South Florida. It examined how professional advisors perceive and react to clients who consult AI-enabled advisory tools.

The findings suggest that the growing availability of AI advisory tools is creating friction in human advisory relationships, even when clients use AI only for background information or as a complementary resource.

Advisors view AI as inferior but still feel threatened

Associate Professor Gerri Spassova, First Author and a member of the Department of Marketing at Monash Business School, described the mechanism behind the effect.

“Advisors view AI as substantially inferior to themselves; thus, being placed in the same category as an AI system feels insulting and signals disrespect, undermining advisors’ willingness to engage,” Associate Professor Spassova explained.

The research found that learning a client has sought AI advice decreases the advisor’s motivation to work with that client. The effect persists even when the AI was consulted only for initial or complementary information rather than as a replacement for the human advisor’s guidance.

The travel agency experiment

One of the ways the researchers tested the effect was through a scenario-based experiment. Participants were asked to imagine they worked for a travel agency and had spent an hour with a client who needed advice about a trip to North America, discussing travel packages and looking up flights and accommodation.

Half of the participants were then told the client also consulted another travel agent and ended up booking the trip through them. For the other half, that second agent was described as an AI travel agent.

Participants were then asked to imagine that the same client returned months later to book a new trip.

Those who had been told the client previously booked through an AI agent indicated they were less willing to spend time with the client on the return visit.

Clients seen as less competent and warm

The research identified several downstream effects. Clients who consult AI may be perceived by advisors as less competent and less warm. The feeling of being offended – driven by a sense of being equated with an AI system – was the key factor explaining the reduced motivation.

Will the effect fade as AI becomes more accepted?

Associate Professor Spassova raised the question of whether the dynamic might shift as AI becomes more widely adopted, but expressed doubt.

“One can only speculate,” she remarked. “My intuition is that the situation will not get much better. Firstly, because professional advisors’ jobs are on the line.”

“Also, as AI gets better, it may threaten our sense of worth and self-regard, and so when clients defer to AI, it would prompt advisors to question the value of their human contribution,” she added.

Researchers suggest discretion for now

The practical implication of the findings, according to the researchers, is that clients may be better off not disclosing to their advisors that they have consulted AI – at least for the time being.

“Ultimately, we believe that at present it is better for clients not to disclose to their advisors that they consulted AI,” Associate Professor Spassova observed. “And this may be particularly true for new client-advisor relationships, where the client has no track record of doing business with the advisor and where trust may not have been established yet.”

She noted that the effect would likely be weaker in longer-standing relationships where the client and advisor have an established history of working together, though even then the advisor may feel the impact.

“The effect will probably be weaker if there is a long history of the client and the advisor working together, though even then the advisor may feel cheated,” she added.

A growing tension between AI tools and human expertise

The research highlights a tension that is likely to grow as AI-enabled advisory tools become more capable and widely available. While these tools can benefit decision-makers by providing additional data and perspectives, they also introduce competitive pressures for human advisors whose expertise they may complement or displace.

The study suggests that the interpersonal consequences of AI adoption extend beyond efficiency and accuracy into questions of professional identity, respect and the willingness of human advisors to engage with clients who use these tools.

Last Updated on May 9, 2026 by Nick Ross