Why Tourists Avoid Peer‐to‐Peer Accommodations? Insights Into Risk, Trust, and Service Dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT This study examines the factors influencing tourist avoidance of peer‐to‐peer (P2P) accommodation, defined as the deliberate exclusion of such options from tourists' lodging choices. Psychological risk emerged as the strongest predictor of overall perceived risk, followed by performance and physical risks, highlighting the importance of emotional and practical concerns in shaping avoidance behavior. The overall perceived risk and the lack of cost‐saving features directly influenced tourists' decisions to avoid P2P accommodation, underscoring the significant role of economic considerations. Additionally, the lack of trust, whether directed at individual hosts or the P2P platform itself, was a key driver of avoidance. Trust in the platform indirectly affected avoidance behavior through its influence on perceived risk, illustrating its critical mediating role. These findings underscore the importance of P2P platforms in addressing safety, trust, and economic concerns, thereby reducing perceived risks and promoting the broader adoption of their services, particularly among risk‐averse travelers.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".