4.6 Article

Negative signals on Peer-to-Peer platforms: The impact of cancellations on host performance across different property types

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhm.2023.103564

关键词

Airbnb host; Signaling theory; Negative signal; Cancellation rate; Accommodation type; Occupancy rate

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Scholars have investigated factors that enhance the performance of Airbnb hosts but there is limited research on negative signals like host cancellation messages. This study focuses on the impact of cancellation signals on host occupancy and how it is moderated by the level of involvement associated with the accommodation type. Using a dataset of 31,778 reviews of 6384 Airbnb listings, the results show that cancellations have a stronger impact on higher involvement accommodations (entire apartments) compared to lower involvement ones (shared rooms). This study contributes to the understanding of negative signals and helps P2P managers comprehend the effects of cancellations on their revenues.
Scholars investigated the factors enhancing Airbnb hosts' performance; however, less research focused on negative signals, such as host cancellation messages. Cancellations are a negative signal that conspicuously reveals the number of times a host has canceled a pre-existing reservation. Drawing upon signaling theory and product involvement, we argue that cancellation signals have a negative impact on host occupancy, but this impact is moderated by the level of involvement associated with the accommodation type (i.e., private room, shared room, entire apartment). The study used a dataset of 31,778 reviews of 6384 Airbnb listings. The results show that accommodation type moderates the relationship, that is, the impact of cancellations is stronger for higher involvement accommodations (entire apartment) versus low involvement ones (shared rooms). This study ad-vances the literature on negative signals and helps P2P managers understand the impact of cancellations on their revenues.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据