There has been a growing understanding in recent years that financial advice is not a purely technical process, with many placing greater importance on the soft skills of working with clients than ever before.
In a new research paper, Dr Ben Neilson, adjunct professor at Central Queensland University and adviser at Complete Wealth, and Michelle Lobartolo, client service officer at Complete Wealth, identify recurring client emotions and construct a “hierarchy of emotional states” in the advice process.
The paper, Mapping the Emotional Landscape of Financial Planning: Identifying Patterns for More Effective Client Relationships, analysed 1,236 client interactions collected over a four-year period.
It found that emotions such as anxiety, relief, confusion, and confidence “consistently emerge at critical stages of the advice process”, acting as pivotal points that can either “hinder or enhance relationship quality and financial outcomes”.
“The analysis revealed that emotions most frequently surfaced at pivotal junctures in the financial planning process, particularly during the initial discovery phase, the presentation of strategies, and the implementation of recommendations,” the paper said.
“Clients commonly exhibited anxiety and uncertainty when disclosing financial circumstances, relief and reassurance when strategies were clearly articulated, and confidence or hesitation when committing to long-term plans.
“These patterns indicate that emotional responses are not random but are closely linked to the cognitive and relational demands placed on clients at specific stages of the advice journey.”
According to the research, there are “significant practical implications” for Australian advisers, as the ability to manage client emotions “effectively represents a critical differentiator of professional competence”.
“Embedding structured emotional awareness and response strategies into adviser training programs, compliance frameworks, and client engagement models could substantially improve both client outcomes and practice efficiency,” it said.
“Moreover, by highlighting the recurrent emotional landscape of financial planning, this research provides a foundation upon which advisers, licensees, and professional bodies can design evidence-based interventions that elevate the standard of advice delivery across the Australian market.”
Mapping client emotions
The researchers tracked the frequency and context of emotions expressed across all recorded interactions. Anxiety, relief and confidence formed the dominant triad shaping engagement and adherence. Secondary emotions such as confusion, curiosity, hesitation and reassurance appeared situationally, often acting as bridges between primary states.
“The analysis revealed that emotions within the financial planning process did not exist in isolation but rather in a dynamic, interrelated structure, where one emotional state could predict or precipitate another,” it said.
“For example, heightened anxiety at the discovery stage often preceded curiosity and, with appropriate adviser support, evolved into clarity and reassurance during strategy development.
“Similarly, uncertainty expressed during complex decision-making phases frequently transitioned into confidence when advisers employed empathetic listening, visualisation tools, or reframing techniques to clarify perceived risks and outcomes.”
Confusion, recorded 312 times, typically appeared when clients confronted complex strategies or trade-offs. It was paired with signs of cognitive overload: repeated questions, slowed responses, and uncertainty about implications.
Relief, recorded 289 times, reliably followed when advisers clarified the strategy or demonstrated alignment with the client’s goals. This stage often triggered curiosity and early trust, reflected in more engaged questioning and deeper participation in decision-making.
Confidence was strongest when advisers offered tangible demonstrations such as scenario modelling, step-by-step implementation plans or clear visualisations. By contrast, hesitation – documented in 127 instances – surfaced when clients perceived significant risk or lacked clarity about long-term impacts.
The tension between confidence and hesitation was found to be one of the strongest predictors of whether a client would commit to or delay strategic decisions.
“Reassurance was particularly effective when advisers provided clear explanations, demonstrated responsiveness, and contextualised adjustments within long-term goals, underscoring the importance of transparent and iterative communication,” the paper said.
“Trust was recorded in 98 instances and was most pronounced among clients who had experienced consistent empathy, validation, and clarity in prior stages.”
Turning anxiety into trust
According to the research, with “proper care, attention, and emotional literacy” advisers are able to help guide clients away from negative emotions like anxiety and toward their positive counterparts.
“In practice, this meant transforming anxiety into reassurance through transparent communication, confusion into clarity via structured explanation, and hesitation into confidence by reinforcing client agency and understanding,” the paper said.
“The predictive nature of these emotional transitions provides a powerful tool for practitioners: by recognising the early indicators of distress or doubt, advisers can strategically intervene to redirect emotional trajectories toward more constructive and enduring client states.
“Such findings underscore the interdependence of emotion and cognition in financial advice and demonstrate how emotionally attuned practice can enhance both client satisfaction and the effectiveness of advice delivery across the Australian financial planning field.”
The researchers also noted that when advisers appropriately acknowledged anxiety and vulnerability, these emotions often become precursors to trust formation – calling it an “unexpected finding”.
“Clients who initially expressed high anxiety were, in later sessions, more likely to exhibit strong emotional alignment with their adviser – suggesting that the effective management of early negative emotions may actually enhance long-term relational commitment,” it said.
“Moreover, transcripts indicated that advisers who explicitly normalised client experiences or contextualised past financial errors as learning opportunities achieved faster emotional transitions into the strategy development phase.”




1. It’s un-analysable
• The piece offers no concrete metrics, data, or evidence of how much mapping emotions improves advice outcomes. Without numbers (e.g., “we reduced drop-outs by X%”, “client-NPS improved Y points”), the claim is vapid.
• It conflates “feelings” with “outcomes”. Knowing that a client feels anxious is obvious; what matters is how you quantitatively address that anxiety in advice and measure the result (client retention, goal attainment, fee sustainability). That link is missing.
• The process steps (“map emotion → adjust communication”) are vague. It doesn’t specify who does the mapping, what tools are used, how it integrates into existing advice workflows, what trade-offs there are.
• For a discipline (financial advice) that demands compliance, measurable outcomes, governance and risk oversight, this article wanders into “soft skill” territory without demonstrating rigour.
• Worse: It opens the door to box-ticking (empathy workshops, “emotion maps” templates) rather than genuine design of advice models tailored to clients, with measurable cost/benefit impact.
2. It’s magnification without purpose
• The article elevates “emotional mapping” to a sort of transformational must-have, thereby magnifying its importance beyond what evidence supports. But why? What real value does it add beyond standard good adviser behaviour (listen, explain, reassure)?
• The risk: this becomes yet another veneer of “value add” in advice marketing — “we map your emotions” sounds compelling, but might in practice translate into superficial check-boxes: “we tracked your worry level” but didn’t reduce your costs, didn’t improve your investment outcome, didn’t shorten your time to retirement.
• The article implicitly suggests that mapping emotions differentiates your firm. But if every adviser claims “we care about your emotions”, the competitive advantage vanishes and you’re simply layering marketing fluff on top of the same service.
• The purpose for the client is unclear. If the outcome isn’t measurable, then the emotional-mapping becomes a cosmetic upgrade—like fancy paint on the same old advice engine, not a rebuild. Clients don’t pay for feelings, they pay for outcomes. The article neglects that.
• Magnification of emotional language invites inflation of promises (“we’ll walk you through every emotional turn”). But it doesn’t properly discuss the cost: extra adviser time, additional process steps, increased documentation and compliance. The “purpose” of the extra effort is missing.
3. It sidesteps the real business dynamics of advice
• Financial advice is not purely a human-emotions exercise; it’s highly regulated, cost-conscious, involves legal duty, compliance, fiduciary risk, product governance, platform margins, scalability. None of that feature prominently.
• By focusing on the emotional mapping, the article distracts from pressing structural issues: Are client fees justified? Are adviser hours efficient? Are advice outcomes measurable? Are we scalable? Are we differentiating beyond “we listen”?
• If advisers adopt emotional-mapping as a new “value add”, they risk neglecting the operating model: adviser remuneration, licensing cost, compliance burden, technology stack. The article treats emotion as a panacea instead of a complement to sound operational design.
• Clients don’t just want “you understand how I feel”; they want “you helped me build the retirement I want, at a fee I accept, with risks managed and outcomes measured.” The emotional rhetoric may seduce but it fails to connect to those deliverables.
Your points highlight important questions, however it’s worth noting that any article proposing a new framework must first satisfy peer-review standards before it can be expected to address the broader regulatory, operational, and commercial dynamics you raise.
I’d encourage reviewing the full publication, as the scientific community only accepts new concepts once evidence, methodology, and measurable outcomes are fully articulated.
If emotional-mapping ultimately proves empirically weak, it will not be adopted; if it demonstrates improvements in client behaviour or advice effectiveness, the field will integrate it accordingly. Exploring such ideas is part of how the discipline advances and any rigorous step toward improving financial-advice practice is ultimately advantageous for all of us.
Perhaps consider curiosity as a first response.
Is this a practitioner actually focusing on practice? How very interesting