Does Airbnb offer hedonic or utilitarian products? An experimental analysis of motivations to use Airbnb
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There has been an ongoing debate regarding motivations to book Airbnb accommodations. One position highlights the role of experiences and an alternative position emphasizes the equal relevance of costs and practical amenities. This experimental research indirectly examines these motivations by analysing the impact of affective and cognitive advertising on attitude and behavioural intentions to book with Airbnb. It also compares it with the advertising effectiveness in a strongly hedonic accommodation product such as boutique hotels. A randomized online experiment assigned 525 participants to one out of four text ads and analysed their responses using 2-way ANOVA. Study findings show no significant differences in effectiveness between emotional and rational ads in the case of Airbnb. This contrasts with the control group of boutique hotels where results confirm emotional appeals to be more effective. These findings indicate that Airbnb is chosen for a hybrid mix of utilitarian and hedonic consumption motivations disconfirming purely experiential interpretations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it