1 Introduction
2 Airbnb User Types, Theories Used, and Countries Examined
2.1 Airbnb User Types
2.2 Theories Used, and Countries Examined
Theory/Model Used | Frequency | Citations |
---|---|---|
Theory of planned Behaviour | 3 | |
Attribution theory | 2 | |
Prospect Theory | 2 | |
Social exchange theory | 2 | |
UTAUT2 | 2 |
3 Theoretical Basis and Hypothesis Development
3.1 UTAUT Based Theories
3.2 Revised UTAUT Model
3.2.1 Performance Expectancy
-
H1: Performance expectancy will positively influence Indian consumer’s attitude to use Airbnb platform.
-
H2: Performance expectancy will positively influence Indian consumer’s intention to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.2 Effort Expectancy
-
H3: Effort expectancy will positively influence Indian consumer’s attitude to use Airbnb platform.
-
H4: Effort expectancy will positively influence Indian consumer’s performance expectancy to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.3 Social Influence
-
H5: Social influence will positively influence Indian consumer’s attitude to use Airbnb platform.
-
H6: Social influence will positively influence Indian consumer’s performance expectancy to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.4 Facilitating Conditions
-
H7: Facilitating conditions will positively influence Indian consumer’s attitude to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.5 Hedonic Motivation
-
H8: Hedonic motivation will positively influence Indian consumer’s effort expectancy to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.6 Attitude
-
H9: Attitude will positively influence Indian consumer’s behavioural intention to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.7 Self-Efficacy
-
H10: Self-efficacy will positively influence Indian consumer’s behavioural intention to use Airbnb platform.
3.2.8 Trust
-
H11: Trust will positively influence Indian consumer’s behavioural intention to use Airbnb platform.
4 Research Methodology
Construct | Measurement Item | Source |
---|---|---|
Performance Expectancy (PE) | PE1: Using Airbnb would make it easier to book my accommodations | Davis (1989) |
PE2: Airbnb would be useful to me when booking accommodations | ||
PE3: Using Airbnb for finding suitable accommodation would improve my performance of booking accommodation | ||
Effort expectancy (EE) | EE1: My interaction with Airbnb for booking accommodation would be clear and understandable | Venkatesh et al. (2012) |
EE2: I would find Airbnb easy to use for booking accommodation | ||
EE3: It would be easy for me to become skilful in using Airbnb for booking accommodation | ||
Social Influence (SI) | SI1: People who are important to me (e.g. family members, friends, colleagues) think I should use Airbnb for booking accommodation | Venkatesh et al. (2012) |
SI2: People who influence my behaviour (e.g. teachers/lecturers, employers, celebrities) think I should use Airbnb for booking accommodation | ||
SI3: People whose opinions I value prefer that I should use Airbnb for booking accommodation | ||
Facilitating Conditions (FC) | FC1: I would have the resources, knowledge and ability to use Airbnb for booking accommodation | Thompson et al. (1991) |
FC2: Specialized instructions concerning the use of Airbnb for booking accommodation would be available to me | ||
FC3: Guidance would be available to me in the selection of accommodation for booking in Airbnb | ||
Hedonic Motivation (HM) | HM1: Using Airbnb for booking accommodation would be fun | Venkatesh et al. (2012) |
HM2: Using Airbnb for booking accommodation would be enjoyable | ||
HM3: Using Airbnb for booking accommodation would be very entertaining | ||
Self-efficacy (SE) | SE1: I could book accommodation using Airbnb if someone else helps me get started | Compeau and Higgins (1995) |
SE2: I could book accommodation using Airbnb if I had built-in help facility for assistance | ||
SE3: I could book accommodation using Airbnb if someone showed me how to do it first | ||
Trust (TR) | TR1: Booking accommodation through Airbnb would be trustworthy | Gefen et al. (2003) |
TR2: I believe Airbnb would take care of its customers | ||
TR3: I believe Airbnb would provide good service | ||
Attitude (AT) | AT1: Using Airbnb for booking accommodation would be a good idea | |
AT2: Using Airbnb for booking accommodation would be a wise idea | ||
AT3: I like the idea of using Airbnb for booking accommodation | ||
Behavioural Intention (BI) | BI1: I would always try to use Airbnb for booking accommodation in my daily life | Venkatesh et al. (2012) |
BI2: I intend to use Airbnb for booking accommodation in the future | ||
BI3: I predict that I would use Airbnb for booking accommodation in the future |
5 Results
5.1 Respondents Demographic Profile
Variables | Specification | Frequency | Valid Percent | Cumulative Percent |
---|---|---|---|---|
Gender | Male | 178 | 59.1 | 59.1 |
Female | 123 | 40.9 | 100 | |
Age | Under 19 Years | 63 | 20.9 | 20.9 |
20–24 Years | 141 | 46.8 | 67.8 | |
25–29 Years | 41 | 13.6 | 81.4 | |
30–34 Years | 26 | 8.6 | 90.0 | |
35–39 Years | 17 | 5.6 | 95.7 | |
40 Years and above | 13 | 4.3 | 100.0 | |
Education | High school graduate | 78 | 25.9 | 25.9 |
Graduate | 160 | 53.2 | 79.1 | |
Postgraduate | 57 | 18.9 | 98.0 | |
Postgraduate Research (PhD) | 6 | 2.0 | 100.0 | |
Occupation | Student | 191 | 63.5 | 63.5 |
Employee-Private Sector | 70 | 23.3 | 86.7 | |
Employee-Public Sector | 30 | 10.0 | 96.6 | |
Unemployed | 9 | 3.0 | 99.6 | |
Pensioner | 1 | 0.3 | 100.0 |
5.2 Descriptive Statistics
Construct | Cronbach’s Alpha | Item(s) | Mean | S.D |
---|---|---|---|---|
Performance Expectancy (PE) | 0.796 | PE1 | 4.88 | 1.384 |
PE2 | 4.93 | 1.309 | ||
PE3 | 4.71 | 1.376 | ||
Effort expectancy (EE) | 0.806 | EE1 | 4.80 | 1.405 |
EE2 | 4.84 | 1.320 | ||
EE3 | 4.83 | 1.407 | ||
Social Influence (SI) | 0.817 | SI1 | 4.70 | 1.437 |
SI2 | 4.51 | 1.480 | ||
SI3 | 4.56 | 1.414 | ||
Facilitating Conditions (FC) | 0.737 | FC1 | 4.99 | 1.342 |
FC2 | 4.75 | 1.372 | ||
FC3 | 4.90 | 1.333 | ||
Hedonic Motivation (HM) | 0.769 | HM1 | 4.72 | 1.395 |
HM2 | 4.74 | 1.357 | ||
HM3 | 4.76 | 1.335 | ||
Self-efficacy (SE) | 0.788 | SE1 | 4.53 | 1.539 |
SE2 | 4.60 | 1.497 | ||
SE3 | 4.75 | 1.525 | ||
Trust (TR) | 0.803 | TR1 | 4.68 | 1.390 |
TR2 | 4.75 | 1.342 | ||
TR4 | 4.95 | 1.321 | ||
Attitude (AT) | 0.851 | AT1 | 4.79 | 1.551 |
AT2 | 4.78 | 1.375 | ||
AT3 | 4.79 | 1.370 | ||
Behavioural Intention (BI) | 0.745 | BI1 | 4.22 | 1.661 |
BI2 | 4.85 | 1.371 | ||
BI3 | 4.85 | 1.362 |
5.3 Measurement Model
Construct | FL | CR | AVE |
---|---|---|---|
Performance Expectancy (PE) | 0.737 | 0.577 | |
PE1 | 0.61 | ||
PE2 | 0.73 | ||
PE3 | 0.74 | ||
Effort expectancy (EE) | 0.811 | 0.718 | |
EE1 | 0.78 | ||
EE2 | 0.81 | ||
EE3 | 0.71 | ||
Social Influence (SI) | 0.817 | 0.728 | |
SI1 | 0.76 | ||
SI2 | 0.76 | ||
SI3 | 0.80 | ||
Facilitating Conditions (FC) | 0.736 | 0.574 | |
FC1 | 0.64 | ||
FC2 | 0.71 | ||
FC3 | 0.73 | ||
Hedonic Motivation (HM) | 0.764 | 0.627 | |
HM1 | 0.75 | ||
HM2 | 0.72 | ||
HM3 | 0.69 | ||
Self-efficacy (SE) | 0.788 | 0.673 | |
SE1 | 0.76 | ||
SE2 | 0.76 | ||
SE3 | 0.71 | ||
Trust (TR) | 0.827 | 0.746 | |
TR1 | 0.80 | ||
TR2 | 0.74 | ||
TR3 | 0.81 | ||
Attitude (AT) | 0.848 | 0.784 | |
AT1 | 0.80 | ||
AT2 | 0.81 | ||
AT3 | 0.81 | ||
Behavioural Intention (BI) | 0.760 | 0.626 | |
BI1 | 0.60 | ||
BI2 | 0.84 | ||
BI3 | 0.70 |
Variable | PE | EE | SI | FC | HM | SE | TR | AT | BI |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PE | 0.760 | ||||||||
EE | 0.670** | 0.844 | |||||||
p < 0.01 | |||||||||
SI | 0.590** | 0.546** | 853 | ||||||
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | ||||||||
FC | 0.531** | 0.587** | 0.428** | 0.758 | |||||
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |||||||
HM | 0.545** | 0.540** | 0.516** | 0.552** | 0.792 | ||||
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | ||||||
SE | 0.402** | 0.323** | 0.427** | 0.310** | 0.421** | 0.820 | |||
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |||||
TR | 0.569** | 0.603** | 0.548** | 0.558** | 0.589** | 0.489** | 0.864 | ||
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | ||||
AT | 0.552** | 0.573** | 0.478** | 0.617** | 0.566** | 0.466** | 0.741** | 0.886 | |
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | |||
BI | 0.549** | 0.542** | 0.472** | 0.549** | 0.548** | 0.493** | 0.636** | 0.631** | 0.791 |
p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 | p < 0.01 |
Fit Statistics | Recommended Value | Model Value |
---|---|---|
Chi- square/ Degree of Freedom (CMIN/DF) | < 3.000 | 1.437 |
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) | > 0.800 | 0.881 |
Probability value (p) | > 0.050 | 0.000 |
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | > 0.900 | 0.970 |
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | < 0.080 | 0.038 |
5.4 Structural Model Testing
Fit Statistics | Recommended Value | Model Value |
---|---|---|
Chi- square/ Degree of Freedom (CMIN/DF) | < 3.000 | 2.317 |
Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index (AGFI) | > 0.800 | 0.829 |
Probability value (p) | > 0.050 | 0.000 |
Comparative Fit Index (CFI) | > 0.900 | 0.902 |
Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) | < 0.080 | 0.066 |
Hypothesis | Path relationship | Path coefficients | p-values | Hypothesis Support | Dependant Construct | R2 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
H6 | SI➔PE | 0.324*** | 0.000 | Yes | Performance expectancy | 0.78 |
H4 | EE➔PE | 0.652*** | 0.000 | Yes | ||
H8 | HM➔EE | 0.816*** | 0.000 | Yes | Effort expectancy | 0.59 |
H1 | PE➔AT | 0.007N.S | 0.969 | No | Attitude | 0.69 |
H3 | EE➔AT | 0.291* | 0.048 | Yes | ||
H5 | SI➔AT | 0.260** | 0.004 | Yes | ||
H7 | FC➔AT | 0.851*** | 0.000 | Yes | ||
H2 | PE➔BI | 0.147* | 0.016 | Yes | Behavioural Intention | 0.65 |
H9 | AT➔BI | 0.295*** | 0.000 | Yes | ||
H10 | SE➔BI | 0.147* | 0.012 | Yes | ||
H11 | TR➔BI | 0.254** | 0.004 | Yes |