Beyond Just Performance: The Neuroscience of Trust in Financial Advice

Trust is the foundation of everything. How many times have you heard that before? Over the past month alone, the concept of trust has been harped on from every angle. From conferences debating whether we can trust AI with our finances, to Medium articles unveiling the “secret” to making strangers trust you in under five minutes, to political debates ahead of the next elections.

As we’re constantly reminded of how volatile and uncertain our world has become, we seem to lose our reference points. With the spread of fake news, we’re told not to believe everything we hear, see, or read. As AI floods our feeds, we’re urged to think critically and resist trusting what algorithms show us. Meanwhile, companies keep insisting on building trust (with colleagues, yes, but above all with clients), reminding us that trust underpins collaboration, lasting relationships, and ultimately, results and revenue.¹

Fostering trust is particularly relevant for financial services. Clients rarely leave their advisors purely because of bad returns. Or at least not only. Numbers from a recent survey² confirm this intuition: nearly 3 out of 4 investors say trust is the top reason they choose an advisor, and 61% will walk away after a breach of trust, even before performance disappoints. Should trust be the real differentiator, we need to understand what happens in our brains when it switches off.

That “off” feeling is not vague intuition. It is the brain running a fast, continuous calculation about whether it is safe to be vulnerable with others. Trust is not a feeling or a social norm. It emerges from learning, evaluation and social reasoning, all implemented in interconnected brain systems and modulated by neurochemicals and social cues.³

In the financial services industry, fostering and nurturing trust matters as much as performance. When the client’s trust circuitry switches from safe to risk, they disengage, double-check, and eventually walk away. Incidentally, our brains don’t consider good and bad moments equally: they weigh negative events more heavily. What it means to you as an advisor is that the math of trust may work against you. If you manage trust as if all interactions count the same, you underestimate how fragile your position is in the client’s nervous system.

By the end of this piece, you will have gathered some insights on what changes in a client’s brain when they decide to trust you, and what changes when they stop. More importantly, you will have a practical lens for deliberately building trust: through signals and behaviours that reduce perceived risk of betrayal, increase predictability, and hold up better under market stress.

The Asymmetry Problem – When Bad Encodes Deeper

Across relationships, feedback and decision-making, decades of research show a consistent pattern: “bad is stronger than good" (Baumeister et al., 2001). Negative experiences are encoded more intensely, remembered more clearly and exert more influence on future judgments than equivalent positive experiences.⁴ Do you recall how losses feel more painful than gains, making loss aversion salient (a mechanism introduced in the post 'When Markets Move Faster Than Our Brains')? The reason for such asymmetric encoding and the associated negativity bias lies in the greater engagement of brain systems for threat detection, attention, and emotional learning than for neutral or positive events.

Neurologically, the amygdala plays a role in perceiving emotional intensity and enhances the encoding and retention of emotional events by modulating hippocampal memory systems.⁵ Negative stimuli boost amygdala activity, which strengthens memory for the emotional item itself. This simultaneously dampens hippocampal “binding” of the surrounding context, resulting in strong but potentially decontextualised memories.

Several papers have identified the amygdala as playing a central role in the formation of normal interpersonal trust. The amygdala does not generate trust by itself; it flags potential social threat, encodes untrustworthiness and supports learning from trust and betrayal. When this system is impaired or strongly down regulated, people tend to be overly trusting and less protected against exploitation.

Why this hits finance hard

Persistent information asymmetry contributes to lower investor trust in financial markets by increasing perceived vulnerability to mispricing, fraud and unfair treatment.⁶ Retail investors are hit the hardest. Not only do institutions and insiders have superior access to data and analytical capacity, but advisors also know more about products, risks and regulations than clients can independently verify at the time of recommendation. These leaves (retail) investors exposed to adverse selection, fraud and misjudged risk.

Add high or even existential stakes⁷ (retirement, family security, legacy) and long temporal lags⁸ (“did I make the right call?” only becomes clear years later). Combined, these make a perfect setup for the brain’s threat systems to stay partially active.

Furthermore, when scandals like the Madoff fraud occur, they don’t stay isolated; they recalibrate collective priors about advisors as a category (what we call broad-scope trust).⁹ Such historical episodes triggered large withdrawals from advisors and forced many firms to close, indicating that such scandals reset prior beliefs about financial advisors more broadly, not just about the specific bad actors.

The result: even a well-meaning advisor operating in a low broad-scope-trust environment may face heightened client scepticism, making trust-building more challenging from the outset. A single mishandled loss explanation, a surprise fee, or a clumsy “this will bounce back” comment can outweigh years of warm, competent meetings - not because the client is ungrateful, but because their brain is wired to protect them from future harm.¹⁰

The Financial Consequence – Trust Reserve as a Risk Buffer

In finance, trust is not just about having a good relationship or liking others, including one's advisor; it also affects how much risk a client is willing to bear. Studies show that greater trust in financial intermediaries and markets predicts higher stock market participation and a greater willingness to hold risky assets, independent of classic risk-preference measures.¹¹

At the centre of this system is oxytocin, a neuropeptide produced in the hypothalamus, often called the “love hormone”. That label, however, is misleading. Oxytocin does not simply make people more trusting; it’s an amplifier for social cues, not a trust button.¹²

What does this mean in practice? Take two advisors delivering the same portfolio recommendation. The first uses open body language, eye contact and an empathetic tone to deliver its advice; the second speaks hurriedly, multitasks and glances away while conveying key ideas. Identical message, but the first triggers oxytocin-related safety cues (trust amplification), while the second activates vigilance.

Oxytocin sharpens attention to social information and interpersonal signals. Whether positive or negative. It modulates how the brain evaluates interpersonal risk by interacting with dopamine and limbic circuits.

• When the context feels safe (alignment, transparency, empathy), oxytocin boosts reward circuits and reduces the amygdala reactivity, promoting cooperative behaviour and making vulnerability feel less risky. As an example of a safe context, consider the following scenario: a client facing market volatility receives a proactive call from their advisor who acknowledges uncertainty, explains the plan, and checks in on their feelings.

• However, when cues feel off (think of opacity about fees, perceived misalignment of interests, dismissiveness), it can amplify withdrawal¹³ and defensive reactions. Remember that wealth advisor glossing over performance gaps or dodging fee discussions?

In short, the effect is entirely context-dependent: either trustworthiness or threat signals are amplified depending on the situation. In this way, the same advice can land completely differently depending on the relational context you've built.¹⁴ And it's why trust isn't merely about what you say. Rather, it’s about the pattern of signals your client's brain is continuously processing as trustworthiness judgments form within 100 milliseconds, so well before any verbal exchange even begins.¹⁵

In summary, you could see one's “trust reserve” functioning like a capital buffer: when it is high, one can tolerate ambiguity and volatility; when it is low, the same market move can trigger panic selling, premature withdrawals, or even refusal to execute sound long-term strategies.¹⁶ In this sense, relationship maintenance is not soft decoration around the portfolio; it is an integral part of your risk management architecture.

The Causal Chain – How Small Frictions Become Major Trust Events

Let’s put the pieces together and shed some light on the risks that reinforce one another. Negativity bias gives more weight to bad moments; lower trust reduces tolerance for ambiguity in portfolios; cognitive strain increases the likelihood of negative interpretations.

Precisely here, small frictions can trigger the brain's trust shutdown. The anterior insula becomes hyperactivated, signalling betrayal aversion and generating anticipatory negative states that suppress future trusting decisions. The amygdala heightens the detection of social threats, shifting behaviour towards caution and reduced vulnerability.²⁰ In a cognitively tired client, this neural cascade turns ambiguous information or badly sequenced information into a lasting “never again” imprint, even if your advice is technically sound.

What Cognitive Overload May Look like for Clients

Narrowed attention: focusing on one headline, one number, or one recent market move, while missing the broader plan.

Dropping variables: complex trade-offs (risk, time horizon, taxes, liquidity, goals) become hard to hold together, so some may be unconsciously ignored by the client despite their importance.

Decision fatigue: later in the day or after many choices, decisions feel more urgent and draining, so the client wants quick answers just to feel relief. This may lead to affect-driven closure, whereby the client pushes for fast closure (“just sell,” “just move to cash,” “just buy what went up”), rather than thoroughly evaluating options.

More “default” behaviour: doing what feels familiar or emotionally safer, even if it does not match long-term goals. Research suggests that risk aversion increases with mental fatigue. ¹⁹

The Structural Vulnerability - When Clients are Least Able to Give You the Benefit of the Doubt

The same prefrontal systems that support self-control and thoughtful social judgment are also resource-limited. Under sustained cognitive load, time pressure, or repeated hard decisions, people rely more on shortcuts, status quo choices, and threat-sensitive gut reactions, rather than on slow, deliberate interpretation.¹⁷ This is commonly referred to as “cognitive overload”. Essentially, there comes a point at which the demands placed on attention and working memory exceed their capacity, leading to a drop in decision-making quality even among capable and competent people.

In finance, clients face too many choices (for example, regarding products, allocation options, and timing), which push them beyond their working memory capacity, encouraging them to simplify and take shortcuts. Additionally, information asymmetry may already keep the amygdala vigilant and threat detection partially active, which intensifies this vulnerability. Higher cognitive load often reduces trust, especially when careful evaluation is needed or when information is complex.¹⁸

So forget about stacking dense performance charts, complex product explanations and administrative paperwork into a long meeting, then slipping fee changes or bad news into the final minutes; unless you aim to deliver the hardest information precisely when your client is least able to process it generously.

Meeting design is a trust variable, and managing your client's cognitive load is a crucial skill to hone.

Design Principles – Managing Trust Like a Balance Sheet

If trust has asymmetric write-downs and limited cognitive bandwidth, then it should be managed like any other scarce asset, with intentional design. Think of it as something you allocate and protect, not something you assume will always be there.

From what we saw before, trust may be seen as having asymmetric write-downs and as endangered by limited cognitive bandwidth. Consider building it and protecting it deliberately and intentionally.

• Sequence the hard stuff early. Complex or sensitive topics should be handled when clients are receptive. In practice, strive to address fee conversations, performance disappointments and key trade-offs in the first half of the meeting, when attention and patience are highest. Clients can process discomfort more easily when they can tap into fresh cognitive resources, which reduces the risk of rumination afterwards.

• Treat negative news as trust expenditures. Prepare for them as deliberately as you would for a major investment proposal, because each “bad event” draws down more from the trust reserve than its surface content suggests. Poorly disclosing a small loss can do more harm than clearly and emphatically framing larger losses.

• Invest during calm markets. Capitalise on low-volatility periods to build surplus trust through proactive communication, education, and small demonstrations of reliability, so the next shock hits a well-capitalised relationship. This is when you “overfund the trust buffer” through consistent small actions rather than dramatic gestures.²¹

• Read client behaviour in crises as feedback. When clients either stay the course with you or flee at the first drawdown, see it as a real-time report on the strength of the trust architecture you built before the crisis, not just on their “risk profile”. Their reactions may reveal more about you and them than their true risk preferences and tolerance.

• Have a negative event protocol. Define in advance: who will call, what to say, how quickly and what follow-up is scheduled. Bad events leave stronger traces, so the speed and quality of your first response are disproportionately important. A well-executed first 24 hours²² can prevent a permanent markdown of the relationship.

Conclusion

Trust isn't a soft byproduct of competence or charisma. Neither is it a vague feeling nor lucky chemistry. It is a well-known fact that trust may take years to build but can be shattered in seconds. And it is now clear that it is heavily shaped by negativity bias, loss aversion, context-dependent neurochemistry, and cognitive overload.

The financial stakes seem undeniable: low trust triggers premature exits, while high trust sustains long-term strategies even in drawdowns. Advisors who not only understand but also master its dynamics don't just keep clients happy. They may prevent panic selling, boost tolerance to volatility, and secure long-term adherence to sound strategies.

Have the hard conversations early. Bank goodwill when things are calm. Agree in advance on what you’ll do when markets drop. When a client reacts strongly, treat it as a signal to revisit the plan and the relationship. Then take a hard look at your meetings and audit your meetings like financial statements: where are you quietly spending trust without noticing? Where do trust write-downs hide?

Recent research²³ reveals that while client trust in advisors drives adherence, the advisor's trust in the client can be equally powerful. When advisors demonstrate trust first, clients follow advice more closely. This two-way dynamic supercharges persuasion and makes your guidance land. Treat trust like any other risk to manage, yet also as a risk management tool in itself. Build and cultivate it on purpose, not by accident. It may be your next retention edge.

Notes

¹ For an empirical research on inter-organisational trust perceived as a crucial factor in relationship quality and performance, please see Seppänen, Blomqvist & Sundqvist (2007).

² Capintel (2025). 2025 Investor Engagement Survey. Survey of 1,000 US investors (Logica Research, Aug-Sep 2024). 72% rank trust as #1 factor for advisor selection; trust breach outweighs underperformance for switching. https://capintel.com/fr/2025-investor-engagement-survey.

³ See Krueger and Meyer-Lindenberg (2019) work on modelling interpersonal trust.

⁴ See Poortinga & Pidgeon (2004) on the role of confirmation bias in remembering more vividly negative experiences.

⁵ Cf. Phelps (2004) and Bonnet et al. (2015)

⁶ Sun (2024) examines the impact of Kangmei Pharmaceutical's financial fraud on retail investors, leading to speculative investments and market volatility. Kangmei Pharmaceutical was one of the biggest Chinese drug makers and its shares were publicly traded. The firm was found to have falsified its financial statements and manipulated stock markets.The study by Yuan, Z. (2024) explores how asymmetric information influences individual investor behaviour, while Wang (2023) focuses on China’s stock market and identifies adverse selection and herding as the main manifestations of such information asymmetry.

⁷ Nash et al. (2021) look at how economic anxiety and its associated self-reported anxiety, modulate risk-taking behaviour. They study how the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) is activated in response to economic anxiety and highlight the need to further examine vmPFC-amygdala connectivity in such decision-making scenarios.

⁸ See Luhmann (2009) on how decision-making is influenced by temporal factors. N.B. for many financial products, the consequences of advice only emerge after long delays (i.e. quarters or years) and are heavily confounded by market volatility and macroeconomic shocks. This is clear from the nature of securities, structured products and long-horizon investments highlighted in post-crisis regulatory reports.

⁹ Gurun et al. (2017) took a closer look at the long-lasting detrimental effects of the Madoff fraud on the investment advisory industry. Advisers who had built trust faced lower withdrawals. See Pauls, Stolper & Walter (2015) on the impact of interpersonal trust in advisors (narrow-scope trust) and broader trust in financial advice. Findings emphasise the importance of broad-scope trust.

¹⁰ For further reading on the topic of switching financial advisor, James (2012) ran an fMRI study examining the neural correlates of advisor switching in an advisor-intermediated stock-market game. Changing advisor was greater in periods of relative underperformance. Brain activation increased in areas associated with error detection and number comparisons. The results may support client-retention strategies emphasising personal connections rather than pure numerical performance.

¹¹ For example, Guiso et al. (2007) demonstrate that less trusting individuals perceive a high risk of being cheated, reducing expected returns below the risk-free rate, thus explaining non-participation independently of fixed costs or classical risk aversion. Trust increases the willingness to hold risky assets: Linnainmaa et al. (2019) find that financial advisors increase equity market participation by 59 percentage points and the share of risky assets by 30 percentage points in Canada. Longer advisor-client relationships (length of the relationship used as a proxy measure for trust) are associated with increased clients' willingness to take risk. Sybrowsky et al. (2014) confirms that more trust correlates with a greater portfolio share in risky assets.

¹² Overall, intranasal oxytocin frequently reduces amygdala reactivity to threat, especially in men and in disorders with amygdala hyperactivity, consistent with an anxiolytic role (Domes et al., 2007; Kirsch et al., 2005). However, gender (Lieberz et al., 2019; Lischke et al., 2012), baseline anxiety, task context (Xin et al., 2020) and amygdala subregion (Gamer et al., 2010) can flip the effect toward increased reactivity, reflecting oxytocin’s broader role in tuning social and threat salience rather than being purely “anti-fear.”

¹³ A 2025 paper by Shamai-Leshem, Radai & Shamay-Tsoory (2025) looks at the oxytocin-mechanisms behind chronic loneliness.

¹⁴ Let’s take a hypothetical and purely illustrative example of an advisor who recommends shifting 10% from equities to bonds during market volatility, citing long-term risk management. In a high-trust relational context (safety cues established), the client hears this as thoughtful stewardship, staying invested with confidence. While in a low-trust built rapport (misalignment cues), the same words may, for instance, land as opportunistic fee-churning, prompting defensiveness or withdrawal. The behaviour is identical: oxytocin amplifies trust signals in one case and threat signals in the other.

¹⁵ See Willis and Todorov (2006).

¹⁶ Jacobsen et al. (2014) explain that low confidence may induce post-panic sales (e.g. after a market crash), while high confidence may improve the adherence to plan despite losses. Also see Sybrowsky et al. (2014).

¹⁷ See papers written by Van Der Linden et al. (2003) and Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory (Sweller, 2011).

¹⁸ See Samson and Kostyszyn (2015) on how technological development and modern life have led to higher cognitive load, contributing to a decline in social trust. Zhou et al. (2017) examine machine learning-based intelligent systems and how cognitive load and uncertainty affected user trust. Their findings reveal that low cognitive load conditions increase trust.

¹⁹ See Jia et al. (2022).

²⁰ See Aimone et al. (2014) and previous notes w.r.t. amygdala.

²¹ See papers from Winkielman and Nowak (2022) and Nowak et al. (2023) on consistency and its impact on trust, and a blog article “Trust is built in small amounts” written by Robbins (2025). Also refer to note 10.

²² PR firms strongly emphasise the first 24 hours as key in crisis management to safeguard trust.

²³ See Haran & Weisel (2025).

References

Aimone, J. A., Houser, D., & Weber, B. (2014). Neural signatures of betrayal aversion: an fMRI study of trust. Proceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences, 281(1782), 20132127. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2013.2127

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is Stronger than Good. Review of General Psychology, 5(4), 323–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323

Baumgartner, T., Heinrichs, M., Vonlanthen, A., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2008). Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans. Neuron, 58(4), 639–650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.04.009

Bonnet, L., Comte, A., Tatu, L., Millot, J., Moulin, T., & De Bustos, E. M. (2015). The role of the amygdala in the perception of positive emotions: an “intensity detector.” Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 178. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00178

Capintel. (2025). 2025 Investor Engagement Survey. https://capintel.com/fr/2025-investor-engagement-survey

Domes, G., Heinrichs, M., Gläscher, J., Büchel, C., Braus, D. F., & Herpertz, S. C. (2007). Oxytocin attenuates amygdala responses to emotional faces regardless of valence. Biological Psychiatry, 62(10), 1187–1190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2007.03.025

Gamer, M., Zurowski, B., & Büchel, C. (2010). Different amygdala subregions mediate valence-related and attentional effects of oxytocin in humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(20), 9400–9405. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1000985107

Guiso, L., Sapienza, P., & Zingales, L. (2007). Trusting the stock market. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.811545

Gurun, U. G., Stoffman, N., & Yonker, S. E. (2015). Trust Busting: The effect of fraud on Investor behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2664307

Haran, U., & Weisel, O. (2025). Trust is a two-way street: Why advisors who trust others are more persuasive. Judgment and Decision Making, 20, e19. doi:10.1017/jdm.2025.2

Jacobsen, K. M., Finke, M. S., & Chen, J. (2014, May). Measure and manage risk tolerance more effectively. Journal of Financial Planning, 27(5), 46–53. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/MAY14-measure-and-manage-risk-tolerance-more-effectively

James, R. N. (2012). Choosing and changing financial advisors: An fMRI study of associated brain activations. Journal of Financial Counseling and Planning, 23(2), 1-15. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2220774

Jia, H., Lin, C. J., & Wang, E. M. (2022). Effects of mental fatigue on risk preference and feedback processing in risk decision-making. Scientific Reports, 12(1), 10695. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-14682-0

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kirsch, P., Esslinger, C., Chen, Q., Mier, D., Lis, S., Siddhanti, S., Gruppe, H., Mattay, V. S., Gallhofer, B., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2005). Oxytocin modulates neural circuitry for social cognition and fear in humans. Journal of Neuroscience, 25(49), 11489–11493. https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.3984-05.2005

Krueger, F., & Meyer-Lindenberg, A. (2019). Toward a Model of Interpersonal Trust Drawn from Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics. Trends in Neurosciences, 42(2), 92–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tins.2018.10.004

Lieberz, J., Scheele, D., Spengler, F. B., Matheisen, T., Schneider, L., Stoffel-Wagner, B., Kinfe, T. M., & Hurlemann, R. (2019). Kinetics of oxytocin effects on amygdala and striatal reactivity vary between women and men. Neuropsychopharmacology, 45(7), 1134–1140. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41386-019-0582-6

Linnainmaa, J., Melzer, B., Previtero, A., & Foerster, S. (2019). Financial advisors and risk-taking. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3478910

Lischke, A., Gamer, M., Berger, C., Grossmann, A., Hauenstein, K., Heinrichs, M., Herpertz, S. C., & Domes, G. (2012). Oxytocin increases amygdala reactivity to threatening scenes in females. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(9), 1431–1438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.01.011

Luhmann, C. (2009). Temporal decision-making: insights from cognitive neuroscience. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 3, 39. https://doi.org/10.3389/neuro.08.039.2009

Pauls, T., Stolper, O. A., & Walter, A. (2015). Trust and the supply side of financial advice. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2670484

Phelps, E. A. (2004). Human emotion and memory: interactions of the amygdala and hippocampal complex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14(2), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.015

Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. F. (2004). Trust, the asymmetry principle, and the role of prior beliefs. Risk Analysis, 24(6), 1475–1486. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00543.x

Nash, K., Leota, J., & Tran, A. (2021). Neural processes in antecedent anxiety modulate risk-taking behavior. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 2637. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-82229-w

Nowak, A., Biesaga, M., Ziembowicz, K., Baran, T., & Winkielman, P. (2023). Subjective consistency increases trust. Scientific Reports, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-32034-4

Robbins, M. (2025, April 18). Trust is built in small amounts. Mike Robbins | Infusing Life and Business With Authenticity and Appreciation. https://mike-robbins.com/trust-is-built-in-small-amounts/

Samson, K., & Kostyszyn, P. (2015). Effects of cognitive load on trusting Behavior – an experiment using the Trust Game. PLoS ONE, 10(5), e0127680. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127680

Shamai-Leshem, D., Radai, T., & Shamay-Tsoory, S. (2025). The oxytocin-attention loop of loneliness. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 179, 106395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2025.106395

Seppänen, R., Blomqvist, K., & Sundqvist, S. (2005). Measuring inter-organizational trust—a critical review of the empirical research in 1990–2003. Industrial Marketing Management, 36(2), 249–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2005.09.003

Sun, H. (2024). The ripple effects of financial fraud: investor trust and risk appetite Post-Kangmei Pharmaceutical. Transactions on Economics Business and Management Research, 10, 23–30. https://doi.org/10.62051/1f5tkb49

Sybrowsky, J. P., Finke, M., & Smith, H. (2014). Trust: A factor in portfolio composition. Journal of Financial Planning, 27(12), 54–61. https://www.financialplanningassociation.org/article/journal/DEC14-trust-factor-portfolio-composition

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. P. Mestre & B. H. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Cognition in education (pp. 37–76). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-387691-1.00002-8

Van Der Linden, D., Frese, M., & Meijman, T. F. (2003). Mental fatigue and the control of cognitive processes: effects on perseveration and planning. Acta Psychologica, 113(1), 45–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0001-6918(02)00150-6

Willis, J., & Todorov, A. (2006). First impressions: making up your mind after a 100-ms exposure to a face. Psychological Science, 17(7), 592–598. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01750.x

Winkielman, P., & Nowak, A. (2023). Beyond the features: The role of consistency in impressions of trust. Social Psychological Bulletin, 17. https://doi.org/10.32872/spb.9233

Wang, Y. (2023). The impact of information asymmetry on investment behavior in the stock market. Highlights in Business Economics and Management, 19, 165–170. https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v19i.11867

Xin, F., Zhou, X., Dong, D., Zhao, Z., Yang, X., Wang, Q., Gu, Y., Kendrick, K. M., Chen, A., & Becker, B. (2020). Oxytocin Differentially Modulates Amygdala Responses during Top‐Down and Bottom‐Up Aversive Anticipation. Advanced Science, 7(16), 2001077. https://doi.org/10.1002/advs.202001077

Yuan, Z. (2024). Influence and inspiration of asymmetric information on individual investor behavior. Advances in Economics Management and Political Sciences, 108(1), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.54254/2754-1169/108/20241974

Zhou, J., Arshad, S. Z., Luo, S., & Chen, F. (2017). Effects of uncertainty and cognitive load on user trust in predictive decision making. In Lecture notes in computer science (pp. 23–39). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-68059-0_2