Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly integrated into higher education, where it supports writing, feedback, problem solving, and research-related tasks while also raising concerns about cognitive offloading and learner dependence. This scoping review mapped the literature on the relationships among GenAI, cognitive offloading, and learner agency in higher education. Peer-reviewed English-language studies were reviewed to examine how learner agency has been conceptualized, how GenAI may both enhance and erode agency, which mechanisms link GenAI use to educational outcomes, and which pedagogical conditions shape these effects. The review shows that learner agency is conceptualized as a multidimensional construct involving self-regulation, reflective judgement, intentionality, and responsible action. Across the literature, GenAI operates through a dual-pathway structure: one pathway may enhance learner agency by strengthening self-regulated learning, self-efficacy, feedback literacy, and reflective engagement, whereas the other may erode learner agency through cognitive offloading, overreliance, dependence, uncritical uptake, and weakened judgement. Overall, the findings suggest that the educational value of GenAI depends less on the technology itself than on how it is pedagogically embedded, with augmentation-oriented and scaffolded use being more supportive of learner agency than replacement-oriented use.

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.

Negative online reviews play a critical role in shaping consumer decision-making in the hospitality sector. Drawing on cue utilization theory and signaling theory, this study examines how different types of negative reviews and host responses affect potential guests’ booking intentions, as well as the underlying mechanisms and boundary conditions. Across three scenario experiments, the proposed framework was tested. Study 1 reveals a significant interaction between the type of negative reviews (informational vs. social) and host response strategies (problem-focused vs. emotion-focused), highlighting that aligning response strategies with review types is critical for effective negative review management. Study 2 demonstrates that perceptions of host competence and attitude mediate these effects, indicating that potential guests make decisions through psychological inference. Study 3 finds that platform-endorsed credibility signals, such as host badges (Superhost vs. non-Superhost), significantly moderate these relationships. When hosts are Superhosts, informational negative reviews paired with problem-focused responses further enhance competence perceptions and booking intentions; for non-Superhosts, social negative reviews paired with emotion-focused responses improve attitude perceptions and booking intentions. The findings advance theoretical understanding of how signaling mechanisms shape consumer behavior in home-sharing hospitality platforms, and offer practical guidance for hosts and platforms to manage online reputations strategically and effectively.