Why would most players hesitate to trade a queen for a rook+minor piece?

I feel like many players generally like their queen a lot, and won't give up the queen for R+N/B+P(even +2P). The value of pieces differ in different positions, but generally if you're down a pawn, it's really normal; if you are down a queen for rook and knight, some players might even resign. In some famous "queen traps", the trapped queen can get exchanged for a rook and minor piece. In some tactical puzzles, the key move just wins a queen for a rook and minor piece (i.e. just wins about a pawn.) Even in one famous "Resigning in winning position" example, all black can do was winning a queen for rook and bishop, which, like a pawn, is hardly a winning edge. So why would people hesitate to trade their queen for a rook+minor piece in most positions, even if doing so can stop the attack, or end the "trap", or just win a pawn for it?

Queens are generally annoying and can keep drawing or even winning chances on the board if the opponent has one other minor piece. In a game I played a few days ago, lichess.org/mOZBg5ru/white#28 You can see that my evaluation after Rxd7? went from +8 to about equal despite being up 2 bishops, a knight, and possibly a rook for my queen.

Sure my opponent didn't play optimally, and I was able to overwhelm the queen with all of my remaining pieces, but I would never have had to risk a draw or loss had I chose to save my queen.

A Queen is much more easier to play with, (minor) pieces you have to coordinate. Look at two minor piece in the endgame, a rook often is comparably strong.

In Blitz you can defeat a whole army with a Queen, just collecting everything loose.

No special recommendation, bringing yourself in difficulties for some debatable compensation.

People tend to stop an evaluation like ... and wins the queen, without looking any deeper.
It might be a remnant of the time as a beginner, when "loss of queen = loss of game" was imprinted in the mind.

Kasparov once said "Ceteris paribus, a rook + minor piece need 1.5 pawns to equalize the queen. " Larry Kaufman said only one pawn is suffice if already under the possession of the bishop-pair. In practise the advantage of Queen against Rook + Minor is something related to the term exchange up. I'd call it the major exchange.

In general, I prefer Queen over R+B+P,

1. If there are too many opponent pawn islands and uncoordinated pieces.

2. too many pieces on the board.

" One Queen never mate". Queen alone is not that powerful if she is alone. But she is very powerful in combination with any pieces ( easy to combine) and easy to attack lose pieces.

#5 if the difference is worth 1.5 pawn, then it is less than an exchange, not a major exhange.

Today the focus is on speed. So, in Blitz it is often much more easier to play with a Queen with intrinsic coordination.

In most positions, rook+minor is clearly worse than a queen, just like in most positions being down a rook for a bishop is bad.

A pawn can be worth very little or a lot. A protected passed pawn on the 6th or 7th rank would make up for the disadvantage, but being up two or three weak pawns is meaningless.

I played a bullet today in which the opponent resigned after I forked his queen and bishop. Interestingly, the engine recommends that he give up his queen while capturing two minor pieces, rather than move his queen and lose the bishop. Perhaps it is because he would probably also lose an exchange after losing the bishop. Still, the engine's preference for giving up the queen is interesting, and my advantage after would be only +4.1.