What the paper studied
The authors systematically reviewed generative AI (GenAI) publications in hospitality and tourism with a focus on consumers. They examined the main motivators of and barriers to consumer adoption of GenAI, and its broader influence on consumer behaviour.
Key findings
- Efficiency dominates the research. Existing studies have largely focused on GenAI's positive impact on operational efficiency.
- The consumer voice is underrepresented. That work mostly reflects the perspectives of industry practitioners, service providers and technology suppliers rather than guests.
- Critical consumer concerns are understudied. Ethics, psychology, social dynamics and security have received limited attention.
- Those gaps carry real risk. The authors argue that these neglected issues pose significant risks to the successful adoption and sustainable development of GenAI in hospitality and tourism.
- A research agenda. Drawing on these gaps, the paper proposes future research directions and sets out theoretical and practical contributions.
Why it matters for hospitality
Guests are the end users of many GenAI tools, from trip-planning assistants to AI-written replies and recommendations. If most of the evidence describes efficiency from the provider side, operators have little to go on when predicting how guests will judge these tools on ethics, privacy, security or emotional comfort, which are the factors that decide whether guests trust and keep using them.
Practical takeaways
- When evaluating guest-facing GenAI tools, assess guest-side risks (ethical, psychological, social and security) alongside efficiency gains.
- Do not assume that efficiency evidence from vendors or operators will translate into guest acceptance. Test tools with real guests before scaling.
- Treat data security and ethical use as adoption factors that shape guest trust, not only as compliance items.
Limitations
This summary is based on the article's published abstract. The full article is open access and gives the review's search strategy, sample and coding details. Because the review synthesizes existing studies, its conclusions reflect the focus and gaps of that literature.