Correction: Examining the adoption of financial robo-advisor as a service (FRAaaS) in Saudi Arabia: the mediating role of personal innovativeness (Journal of Financial Services Marketing, (2026), 31, 2, (29), 10.1057/s41264-026-00355-w)

In the original version of the article, in Measurement of Variables section the last line which previously read as. The particulars of the questionnaire are revealed in Table 3 (Measurement Model). But should have been. The particulars of the questionnaire items are revealed in Appendix A. Under section Convergent Validity (CV) and Composite Reliability (CR), third sentence which previously appeared as. The outcomes of the analyzed data are displayed in Table 2. But should have been. The outcomes of the analyzed data are displayed in Table 3. Under Discriminant Validity section, second sentence which previously appeared as. Table 3 explicitly states that all variables’ values of HTMT were below 0.90 and are valid to run structural model analysis. According to Henseler et al. (2015), the discriminant validity is verified when the HTMT value is below 0.90. All the ratios in Table 4 are below 0.9, which means that all the measures are valid. But should have been. The finding explicitly states that all variables’ values of HTMT were below 0.90 and are valid to run structural model analysis. According to Henseler et al. (2015), the discriminant valid-ity is verified when the HTMT value is below 0.90. All the ratios in Table 4 are below. Under section Structural Model Analysis, second paragraph 5th and 6th sentence which previously appeared as. In contrast, PI did not mediate the relationships between SI and BI (β = 0.02, p =.163) or between PE and BI (β = −0.001, p =.479), leading to the rejection of these hypotheses (H10 and H12), see Table 5. The R² and Q² values were calculated for both endogenous constructs. The results indicate that BI (R² = 0.547, Q² = 0.49) and PI (R² = 0.461, Q² = 0.42) demonstrate acceptable explanatory power and predictive relevance, confirming the adequacy of the proposed PLS-SEM model, see Table 6. But should have been. In contrast, PI did not mediate the relationships between SI and BI (β = 0.02, p =.163) or between PE and BI (β = −0.001, p =.479), lead-ing to the rejection of these hypotheses (H10 and H12), see Table 6. The R² and Q² values were calculated for both endog-enous constructs. The results indicate that BI (R² = 0.547, Q² = 0.49) and PI (R² = 0.461, Q² = 0.42) demonstrate acceptable explanatory power and predictive relevance, confirming the adequacy of the proposed PLS-SEM model, see Table 7. Under Necessary condition analysis section, second paragraph fourth sentence which previously appeared as. Next, a ceiling line is created between the observation-containing zone and the observation-free zone (Fig. 2). But should have been. Next, a ceiling line is created between the observa-tion-containing zone and the observation-free zone. And 7th sentence which previously appeared as. This analysis assisted in determining the extent to which each predictor construct acted as anecessary condition for the outcome variables. But should have been. This analysis assisted in determining the extent to which each predictor construct acted as a necessary condition for the outcome variables. And 8th sentence which previously appeared as. To ascertain the statistical significance, this study assessed the effect sizes (d) of the latent variable ratios and performed a permutation test using the suggested random sample-size of 10,000 (Dul 2016; Dul et al. 2021). According to Table 7, several factors identified as necessary predictors of PI and BI toward FRAaaS adoption. But should have been. To ascertain the statistical significance, this study assessed the effect sizes (d) of the latent variable ratios and performed a permutation test using the suggested random sample-size of 10,000 (Dul 2016; Dul et al. 2021). Accord-ing to Table 8, and 9, several factors identified as necessary predic-tors of PI and BI toward FRAaaS adoption. Table 9 which previously appeared as. NCA findings based on Behavioral Intention as Endogenous Construct Factors Original effect size 95.00% Permutation p-value LV scores - EE 0.313 0.135 0.000 LV scores - FC 0.244 0.147 0 LV scores - PE 0.297 0.109 0 LV scores - PI 0.083 0.085 0.064 LV scores - SI 0.018 0.041 0.257 But should have been. NCA findings based on Behavioral Intention as Endogenous Construct Factors Original effect size 95.00% Permutation p-value LV scores - EE 0.313 0.135 0.000 LV scores - FC 0.244 0.147 0.000 LV scores - PE 0.297 0.109 0.000 LV scores - PI 0.083 0.085 0.064 LV scores - SI 0.018 0.041 0.257 In appendix section, the term FRaaS should be replaced as FRAaaS.