Running Head: AIRBNB

Airbnb: Quantitative Data Report

Madeleine Bellard, Ashlee Hicks, Brianna Krupunich, Maya Lazar

Ithaca College

STCM-28800
December 11, 2018
Running Head: AIRBNB
2
I. Link to Survey
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScRlxqlvMD2k7MomDY1CT8Fn7kT_MJTGa5e8a
mm6jvecNhxwA/viewform?usp=sf_link

II. Sampling Information

The sampling method that was used for this survey was non-probability convenience sampling.
Non-probability convenience sampling utilizes the most easily accessible persons. This type of
non-probability sample in also called the “opportunity sample”. The benefits of this variety of
sampling is that is is cheap, quick and easy. The cons of the non-probability sampling include
bias, self-selection and they can’t be generalized.

III. Survey Response Information

A. Demographics
At the conclusion of our survey, we had a total of 42 survey participants (N). The demographic of
our survey respondents were in the form of age and primary residence location. We found that
48.5% of our participants were 20 years old, which makes the majority. The mean age was 20.4.
We asked people to write out the town or city of their primary location. If we were to conduct this
survey again, we would ask, instead of writing out the city of their primary residence, whether
they lived in a rural, suburban or urban area. Looking at the data it seems as though everyone who
participated was from the Northeastern states; New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Pennsylvania, Vermont and New Hampshire.
Running Head: AIRBNB
3

B. Non-Statistical Findings
The majority of our participants traveled for leisure 1-2 times per year at 67.4%. An interesting
finding that came from our research was that every one of our participants have stayed in a hotel.
Another promising finding through our survey is that all of our participants were very aware of
Airbnb and its mission. Some of the responses that most frequently came up were: “Place to stay
while traveling”, “Allows people to rent homes for cheaper”, and more.
Running Head: AIRBNB
4
Running Head: AIRBNB
5
Running Head: AIRBNB
6
III. Hypotheses and Analysis Plan for Study and Test

H1: Individuals who prefer a unique accommodation experience will be more likely to book an
accommodation through Airbnb.

Null Hypothesis: Whether or not an individual values a unique accommodation experience will have no
impact on their preference to book with Airbnb over hotels.

Independent Variable: How much a person values unique accommodation experience.

Dependent Variable: If an individual prefers to book Airbnb.

Operationalization:
a. IV Question: Please choose a number 1-7 to show your level of agreement with the
following statement. "A unique accommodation experience is important to me when I
travel."
b. DV Question: Please choose a number 1-7 to show your level of agreement with the
following statement: "I book Airbnbs more often than hotels when traveling."

Relationship: Positive

Test: The correlation test was used because both variables are continuous.

r - 0.394
p - 0.010

P value < .05. Therefore, there exists a significant relationship between the two variables. We reject the
null hypothesis.
R value = .30 - .70. Therefore, there is a moderate or substantial relationship between the two variables.

H2: Travelers who feels less safe staying in Airbnb accommodations will be less likely to book
accommodations through Airbnb.
Running Head: AIRBNB
7

Null Hypothesis: Whether or not an individual feels safe staying in an Airbnb will have no impact on
their preference to book with Airbnb over hotels.

Independent Variable: How safe travelers feel staying in an Airbnb accommodation.

Dependent Variable: How likely an individual is to book with Airbnb over another accomodation.

Operationalization:
a. IV Question: Please choose a number 1-7 to show your level of agreement with the
following statement: "I feel safe staying in an Airbnb accommodation."
b. DV Question: How likely are you to book an accommodation with Airbnb?

Relationship: Positive

Test: The correlation test was used because both variables are continuous.

r - 0.672
p - 0.000

P value < .05. Therefore, there exists a significant relationship between the two variables. We reject the
null hypothesis.
R value = .30 - .70. Therefore, there is a moderate or substantial relationship between the two variables.

H3: Travelers who prefer regulatory consistency (i.e. a room key, a private space, standard amenities) are
less likely to book accommodations through Airbnb.

Null Hypothesis: Whether or not a traveler prefers regulatory consistencies within an accommodation will
not impact their preference to book with Airbnb.

Independent Variable: Traveler’s desire for consistency.

Running Head: AIRBNB
8

Dependent Variable: Whether or not they are likely to book with Airbnb.

Operationalization:
a. IV Question: Please choose a number between 1-7 to represent the level of importance in the
following statement. How important is it that your overnight accommodation (i.e. hotel, rental
property, Airbnb) has standard, consistent features? (private bedroom, private bathroom,
kitchenette, wifi, etc.)
b. DV Question: How likely are you to book an accommodation with Airbnb?

Relationship: Positive

Test: The correlation test was used because both variables are continuous.

r- 0.107
p- 0.500

P-value >.05. Therefore, a significant relationship does not exist. We fail to reject the null hypothesis.
R-value < .30 Therefore, there is a weak relationship between the two variables.

H4: Those who have stayed in an Airbnb accommodations will have more positive attitudes towards
Airbnb, than those who have not stayed in an Airbnb.

Null Hypothesis: Staying in an Airbnb accommodations will result in no difference in attitudes towards
Airbnb.

Independent Variable: Experience of staying in an Airbnb

Dependant Variable: attitudes of Airbnb

Operationalization:
a. IV Question: Have you ever stayed in a hotel before?
i. Yes
ii. No
Running Head: AIRBNB
9
b. DV Question: What is your attitude towards Airbnb?
i. Positive
ii. Neutral
iii. Negative
iv. Other

Relationship: Positive

Test: The T-test was used because there is a nominal value and a continuous dependent variable.

Test statistic (t) - 4.310

Degrees of Freedom - 40

Significance level (p) - .000

IV. Conclusion
Out of the four hypotheses tested, we rejected the null hypothesis of 3 out of 4, H1, H2 and H4.
We determined whether or not the findings were statistically significant based upon the p value. If the p
value was less than .05 then the results were said to be statistically significant and we rejected the null
hypothesis. If the p value was above 0.05 then the findings were not statistically significant and we failed
to reject the null hypothesis. Three of our hypotheses tests were correlation tests. This means that we also
utilized the r value to determine the strength of the relationship between two variables. If the r value was
less than .30 there is said to be a weak or slight relationship, if the r value is equal to .30 - .70 then there is
said to be a moderate or substantial relationship, and lastly if r value is greater that .70 the relationship
between variables is strong or dependable. Our fourth hypothesis test was a one-tailed T-test. This means
that we collected nominal data from two groups and had them both answer an interval question. What we
found was that the P-value was <.05 meaning the t value is larger than the critical value.
Running Head: AIRBNB
10
Findings in words:
● In hypothesis one or H1, the relationship that was predicted was that travelers would prefer to
book with Airbnb more depending on how much they value a unique accommodation experience.
By using a correlation test, we discovered that the P value < .05. We rejected our null hypothesis
that claimed “Whether or not an individual values a unique accommodation experience will have
no impact on their preference to book with Airbnb over hotels,” as there is a significant
relationship between the independent and dependent variables involved in hypothesis one or H1.
Moreover, it became clear that the relationship between the variables were positive since the R-
value = 0.394 which is between the values that create a moderate or substantial relationship
between two variables. The two continuous variables in this hypothesis led to a strong
relationship, as is seen in another hypothesis to follow.
● In hypothesis two or H2, it was predicted that travelers who did not feel safe staying in an Airbnb
accommodation would be more likely to book with a hotel over Airbnb. Similarly to hypothesis
one or H1, after using a correlation test our P-value indicates that there exists a significant
relationship between the two variables. At 0.000, our p-value lies below .05 making it so we
rejected the null hypothesis. With a positive r-value, we are also made aware that the variables in
this hypothesis are heading the same way. For this hypothesis in particular, the R-value is in
between .30 and .70 which means there is a moderate or substantial relationship between the two
variables. Based off of the statistics found in hypothesis two or H2, it is made clear that there is a
relevant relationship between traveler’s safety concerns and the safety concerns influence on
traveler’s likeliness to book through Airbnb.
● In hypothesis three or H3, we predicted that travelers who prefer regulatory consistency (i.e. a
room key, a private space, standard amenities) are less likely to book accommodations through
Airbnb. Determined by the data, it was discovered that this hypothesis was incorrect. At 0.500,
the p-value, indicates that a significant relationship does not exist between the independent
variable and the dependent variable. The r-value is <.30, signifying a weak relationship between
the variables as well. Based on the statistics found in hypothesis three or H3, we must fail to
reject the null hypothesis that states “Whether or not a traveler prefers regulatory consistencies
within an accommodation will not impact their preference to book with Airbnb”. The data did not
prove a significant relationship between the two variables.
● In hypothesis four or H4, it was predicted that those who have stayed in an Airbnb would have a
positive attitude about the company. This was proven to be true, using a T-test, taking data from
those who have stayed in an Airbnb, and those who have not. Since we had a p-value of < .05
we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference in attitude toward Airbnb based on
exposure to staying in an Airbnb. Our data proves there is a positive relationship between having
stayed in an Airbnb and having a positive attitude of Airbnb.

Recommendations based on results:

● After obtaining results from our survey, we determined that travelers drastically take safety into
consideration when booking with a specific accommodation, especially the booking of an Airbnb
accommodation. For Airbnb, this means that their highest concerns are not regarded to safety,
resulting in a negative connotation with their name. Airbnb would benefit greatly from a more in
depth guest and host process; therefore, we recommend that they implement a feature on their app
and website that would improve this process. Within this enhanced feature would be regulations
Running Head: AIRBNB
11
and requirements that would make guests and hosts more transparent when booking an
accommodation and/or renting out one’s space. This would help Airbnb immensely by erasing
the negative perception that travelers have of their company. Additionally, we determined that
Airbnb does not need to highlight specific accommodation features, as individuals consider this
less when considering an Airbnb location. Regulating amenities and requiring Airbnb hosts to
provide certain amenities and accommodations has the potential likelihood to discount the unique
accommodation features that pull in Airbnb’s audience. If Airbnb continues to capitalize on its
unique accommodations as well as its ability to offer unique personalized experiences and
excursions as well, Airbnb will continue to grow a consumer audience who values these types of
travel experiences. While amenities are important to some, it is less influential in the
consideration process when specifically choosing to book through Airbnb. We recommend that
Airbnb focuses efforts in line with unique experiences, safety and brand attitudes. The features of
an accommodation play a minute role in the decision to book through Airbnb.

Limitations of surveys as a method and of our own survey:

● The limitations of surveys as a research method include many aspects. Certain disadvantages of
surveys include the difficulty of establishing causality between respondents answers to questions,
bias that can be caused by inappropriate wording or structure of survey questions, sampling issues
and there is no opportunities for follow-up questions. In regards to our survey in particular, the
biggest limitation came in form of sampling. Due to the fact that we were required to use non-
probability sampling or “opportunity sampling” there was very little representation of the general
population, meaning that these results couldn’t apply to the population as a whole, as it is just
representative of college students. We attempted to eliminate bias within question structure by
eliminating double-barreled questions, leading questions and providing answers to questions that
were mutually exclusive and exhaustive. We also attempted to avoid vague references in our
questions. For example, when asking on average how much our average participant traveled in
the past year, we made sure to specify that we wanted to know about leisure trips only. Also,
when using questions where answers were continuous, or on a scale, we attempted to avoid a
regression to the mean by making the scales 7-point instead of 5-point. This was a successful
attempt as we found a lot of variety within scale questions, as people were not just choosing “4”
as their answer, thereby remaining neutral towards the
question.