Platform or Host? Matching Service Recovery to Mitigate Negative Reviews

This study investigates how different types of service failures in peer-to-peer accommodation influence guests’ negative review intentions. It explores the underlying psychological mechanisms and how the recovery agent’s identity (platform vs. host) shapes recovery effectiveness. Adopting a mixed-methods research design, an initial qualitative study (N = 52) explored key themes related to service failure and psychological contract violation, followed by three scenario-based experiments that empirically tested the proposed theoretical model and the moderating role of the recovery agent. Specifically, Study 1 (N = 236) and Study 2 (N = 297) employed 3 × 1 between-subjects designs comparing informational service failure, social service failure, and a control condition, while Study 3 (N = 352) adopted a 2 × 2 between-subjects design crossing service failure type (informational vs. social failure) and recovery agent identity (platform vs. host recovery). The findings reveal that both informational and social service failures significantly increase negative review intentions, with distinct mediating mechanisms: informational psychological contract violation mediates the impact of informational failures, whereas relational psychological contract violation mediates the effect of social failures. Importantly, a “recovery-agent matching” effect emerges, whereby platform recovery more effectively mitigates informational violations, while host recovery is more effective in repairing relational violations. By applying psychological contract theory to the dual service-provider structure of the sharing economy, this study extends the service recovery literature and shifts the focus from what recovery is delivered to who delivers it. The findings also provide practical guidance for managers, highlighting the need to move beyond one-size-fits-all recovery strategies.