Homogeneity, Trust, and Reciprocity: Three Keys to the Sustainable Hospitality Exchange of Couchsurfing
Abstract
Couchsurfing is an increasingly popular hospitality exchange community that is building bridges between travelers and locals. This article is an attempt to explore its critical success factors. On the basis of questionnaires and online statistics, Couchsurfers' demographics, preferences, and relations are discussed by applying statistical, linear regression and text model methods. Results show that (a) Couchsurfers are a group of people with strong homogeneous features, (b) the effective evaluation system builds mutual trust, and (c) the hospitality is passed on in a circular manner rather than point-to-point. In conclusion, the homogeneity of Couchsurfers, the trust evaluation system, and the generalized reciprocity principle prove to be main contributors to Couchsurfing's development.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Reputation systems are one of the most important tools to assess a seller's reputation in online C2C marketplaces.
“To assess the seller's reputation in online C2C marketplaces, one of the most important tools are reputation systems (Liu et al., 2016;Malinen & Ojala, 2013).”
From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2016
Trust people derive from a reputation system was found among Couchsurfing users.
“The trust people derive from a reputation system was also found by Liu et al. (2016) who studied users of Couchsurfing.”
From Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as Liu et al., 2016
Cites
Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns
Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2008.08.006 · Cited by 987 · see citing works
Defining the virtual tourist community: Implications for tourism marketing
Wang, Y., Yu, Q., & Fesenmaier, D. R. (2002) · Tourism Management · doi:10.1016/s0261-5177(01)00093-0 · Cited by 525 · see citing works
Building trust online: Interactions among trust building mechanisms
Chang, M. K., Cheung, W., & Tang, M. (2013) · Information & Management · doi:10.1016/j.im.2013.06.003 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Antecedents of trust in the sharing economy: A systematic review
ter Huurne, M., Ronteltap, A., Corten, R., & Buskens, V. (2017) · Journal of Consumer Behaviour · doi:10.1002/cb.1667 · Cited by 456 · see citing works
Zhang, L., Yan, Q., & Zhang, L. (2018) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2018.10.002 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
A cross-sector exploration of the barriers to customer satisfaction in the sharing economy
Panniello, U., Natalicchio, A., Ardito, L., & Messeni Petruzzelli, A. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2024.114862 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Liu, Y., Nie, L., & Li, L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Tourism Analysis
- Publisher
- Cognizant, LLC
- Published
- 2016-05-11
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-157
- ISSN
- 1083-5423 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2395760741
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 3.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Tourism Analysis (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Marketing › Sharing Economy and Platforms
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Diverse Aspects of Tourism Research
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Marketing and Social Media
- Keywords
- Couchsurfing, homogeneity, trust, reciprocity, generalized reciprocity, success factors, online travel communities
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
