Featured Post from University of Florida

Why shoppers are paying more for a fake Amazon discount

May 9, 2023

2 min

By Halle Burton


According to new research by Jinhong Xie, a Warrington College of Business professor at the University of Florida, more than a quarter of Amazon vacuum cleaners sold have increased their prices while pretending to offer discounts.


Xie’s pricing phenomenon research is joined with Sungsik Park at the University of South Carolina and Man Xie at Arizona State University, publishing their analysis in the Marketing Science journal.


A product’s price increase is paired with a previously unadvertised listing price, which encourages Amazon shoppers to receive a deceitful false discount.


This faux discount drove higher sales despite the price increase, and shoppers end up paying 23% more on average.


“When you see this list-price comparison, you naturally assume you are getting a discount. It’s not just that you didn’t get a discount. You actually paid a higher price than before the seller displayed the discount claim,” said Xie.


Regulations currently prohibit deceptive pricing by requiring truthful price comparisons from the sellers, but a list price can still be misleading under these circumstances.


Shoppers are misled by the timing of price comparisons where retailers advertise a price discount that actually only gives the impression of a deal.


“Current regulations are all about the value of the list price, and they don’t say anything about misleading consumers by manipulating the timing of the list price’s introduction,” Xie said.


Xie and her colleagues followed more than 1,700 vacuums on Amazon from 2016 to 2017 gathering observational data on their prices.


“We found that by increasing the price by 23% on average, the seller achieves a 15% advantage in their sales rank among all products in the home and kitchen category,” Xie said.


Xie encourages consumers to be aware, not make assumptions about discount claims and utilize multiple websites to compare prices.


“We think that consumer organizations and regulators should evaluate this new marketing practice to determine whether and how to manage it.”

Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Florida

3 min

Young magmas on the moon came from much shallower depths than previously thought, new study finds

New research on the rocks collected by China's Chang'e 5 mission is rewriting our understanding of how the moon cooled. Stephen Elardo, Ph.D., an assistant professor of Geological Sciences with the University of Florida, has found that lava on the near side of the moon likely came from a much shallower depth than previously thought, contradicting previous theories on how the moon produced lavas through time. These samples of basalt, an igneous rock made up of rapidly cooled lava, were collected from the near side of the moon by the Chang’e 5 mission and are the youngest samples collected on any lunar mission, making them an invaluable resource for those studying the geological history of the moon. In order to get an estimate of how deep within the moon the Chang’e 5 lava came from, the team conducted high-pressure and high-temperature experiments on a synthetic lava with an identical composition. Previous work from Chinese scientists has determined that the lava erupted about 2 billion years ago and remote sensing from orbit has showed it erupted in an area with very high abundances of potassium, thorium and uranium on the surface, all of which are radioactive and produce heat. Scientists believe that, in large amounts, these elements generate enough heat to keep the moon hot near the surface, slowing the cooling process over time. “Using our experimental results and thermal evolution calculations, we put together a simple model showing that an enrichment in radioactive elements would have kept the Moon's upper mantle hundreds of degrees hotter than it would have been otherwise, even at 2 billion years ago,” explained Elardo. These findings contradict the previous theory that the temperature of the moon’s outer portions was too low to support melting of the shallow interior by that time and may challenge the hypothesis about how the moon cooled. Prior to this study, the generally-accepted theory was that the moon cooled from the top down. It was presumed that the mantle closer to the surface cooled first as the surface of the moon gradually lost heat to space, and that younger lavas like the one collected by Chang’e 5 must have come from the deep mantle where the moon would still be hot. This theory was backed by data from seismometers placed during the Apollo moon landings, but these findings suggest that there were still pockets of shallow mantle hot enough to partially melt even late into the moon’s cooling process. “Lunar magmatism, which is the record of volcanic activity on the moon, gives us a direct window into the composition of the Moon's mantle, which is where magmas ultimately come from,” said Elardo. “We don't have any direct samples of the Moon's mantle like we do for Earth, so our window into the composition of the mantle comes indirectly from its lavas.” Establishing a detailed timeline of the moon’s evolution represents a critical step towards understanding how other celestial bodies form and grow. Processes like cooling and geological layer formation are key steps in the “life cycles” of other moons and small planets. As our closest neighbor in the solar system, the moon offers us our best chance of learning about these processes. “My hope is that this study will lead to more work in lunar geodynamics, which is a field that uses complex computer simulations to model how planetary interiors move, flow, and cool through time,” said Elardo. “This is an area, at least for the moon, where there's a lot of uncertainty, and my hope is that this study helps to give that community another important data point for future models.”

4 min

Surprising finding could pave way for universal cancer vaccine

An experimental mRNA vaccine boosted the tumor-fighting effects of immunotherapy in a mouse-model study, bringing researchers one step closer to their goal of developing a universal vaccine to “wake up” the immune system against cancer. Published today in Nature Biomedical Engineering, the University of Florida study showed that like a one-two punch, pairing the test vaccine with common anticancer drugs called immune checkpoint inhibitors triggered a strong antitumor response in laboratory mice. A surprising element, researchers said, was that they achieved the promising results not by attacking a specific target protein expressed in the tumor, but by simply revving up the immune system — spurring it to respond as if fighting a virus. They did this by stimulating the expression of a protein called PD-L1 inside of tumors, making them more receptive to treatment. The research was supported by multiple federal agencies and foundations, including the National Institutes of Health. Senior author Elias Sayour, M.D., Ph.D., a UF Health pediatric oncologist and the Stop Children's Cancer/Bonnie R. Freeman Professor for Pediatric Oncology Research, said the results reveal a potential future treatment path — an alternative to surgery, radiation and chemotherapy — with broad implications for battling many types of treatment-resistant tumors. “This paper describes a very unexpected and exciting observation: that even a vaccine not specific to any particular tumor or virus — so long as it is an mRNA vaccine — could lead to tumor-specific effects,” said Sayour, principal investigator at the RNA Engineering Laboratory within UF’s Preston A. Wells Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy. “This finding is a proof of concept that these vaccines potentially could be commercialized as universal cancer vaccines to sensitize the immune system against a patient’s individual tumor,” said Sayour, a McKnight Brain Institute investigator and co-leader of a program in immuno-oncology and microbiome research. Until now, there have been two main ideas in cancer-vaccine development: To find a specific target expressed in many people with cancer, or to tailor a vaccine that is specific to targets expressed within a patient's own cancer. “This study suggests a third emerging paradigm,” said Duane Mitchell, M.D., Ph.D., a co-author of the paper. “What we found is by using a vaccine designed not to target cancer specifically but rather to stimulate a strong immunologic response, we could elicit a very strong anticancer reaction. And so this has significant potential to be broadly used across cancer patients — even possibly leading us to an off-the-shelf cancer vaccine.” For more than eight years, Sayour has pioneered high-tech anticancer vaccines by combining lipid nanoparticles and mRNA. Short for messenger RNA, mRNA is found inside every cell — including tumor cells — and serves as a blueprint for protein production. This new study builds upon a breakthrough last year by Sayour’s lab: In a first-ever human clinical trial, an mRNA vaccine quickly reprogrammed the immune system to attack glioblastoma, an aggressive brain tumor with a dismal prognosis. Among the most impressive findings in the four-patient trial was how quickly the new method — which used a “specific” or personalized vaccine made using a patient’s own tumor cells — spurred a vigorous immune-system response to reject the tumor. In the latest study, Sayour’s research team adapted their technology to test a “generalized” mRNA vaccine — meaning it was not aimed at a specific virus or mutated cells of cancer but engineered simply to prompt a strong immune system response. The mRNA formulation was made similarly to the COVID-19 vaccines, rooted in similar technology, but wasn’t aimed directly at the well-known spike protein of COVID. In mouse models of melanoma, the team saw promising results in normally treatment-resistant tumors when combining the mRNA formulation with a common immunotherapy drug called a PD-1 inhibitor, a type of monoclonal antibody that attempts to “educate” the immune system that a tumor is foreign, said Sayour, a professor in UF’s Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery and the Department of Pediatrics in the UF College of Medicine. Taking the research a step further, in mouse models of skin, bone and brain cancers, the investigators found beneficial effects when testing a different mRNA formulation as a solo treatment. In some models, the tumors were eliminated entirely. Sayour and colleagues observed that using an mRNA vaccine to activate immune responses seemingly unrelated to cancer could prompt T cells that weren’t working before to actually multiply and kill the cancer if the response spurred by the vaccine is strong enough. Taken together, the study’s implications are striking, said Mitchell, who directs the UF Clinical and Translational Science Institute and co-directs UF’s Preston A. Wells Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy. “It could potentially be a universal way of waking up a patient’s own immune response to cancer,” Mitchell said. “And that would be profound if generalizable to human studies.” The results, he said, show potential for a universal cancer vaccine that could activate the immune system and prime it to work in tandem with checkpoint inhibitor drugs to seize upon cancer — or in some cases, even work on its own to kill cancer. Now, the research team is working to improve current formulations and move to human clinical trials as rapidly as possible. While the experimental mRNA vaccine at this point is in early preclinical testing — in mice not humans — information about available nonrelated human clinical trials at UF Health can be viewed here.

3 min

Psychologists introduce third path to a ‘good life’ — one full of curiosity and challenge

For centuries, scholars and scientists have defined the “good life” in one of two ways: a life that is rooted in happiness, characterized by positive emotions, or one that is centered on meaning, guided by purpose and personal fulfillment. But what if there is another, equally valuable path — one that prioritizes challenge, change and curiosity? “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” — Erin Westgate, Ph.D., assistant professor psychology, director of the Florida Social Cognition and Emotion Lab This third dimension, which may result in a more psychologically rich life for some, is being explored in a new study — led by University of Florida psychologist Erin Westgate, Ph.D., in collaboration with Shigehiro Oishi, Ph.D., of the University of Chicago. According to their research, some people prioritize variety, novelty and intellectually stimulating experiences, even when those experiences are difficult, unpleasant or lack clear meaning. “This idea came from the question: Why do some people feel unfulfilled even when they have happy and meaningful lives?” Westgate said. “We found that what was missing was psychological richness — experiences that challenge you, change your perspective and satisfy your curiosity.” Westgate and Oishi’s research shows that a psychologically rich life is distinct from lives defined by happiness or meaning. While happiness focuses on feeling good, and meaning is about doing good, richness is about thinking deeply and seeing the world differently. And for a significant minority of people around the world, that third path is the one they would choose — even if it means giving up happiness or meaning. A new way to think about the ‘good life’ According to Westgate and Oishi, psychological richness is defined as a life filled with diverse, perspective-changing experiences — whether these are external, such as traveling or undertaking new challenges, or internal, like absorbing powerful books or pieces of music. “A psychologically rich life can come from something as simple as reading a great novel or hearing a haunting song,” Westgate said. “It doesn’t have to be about dramatic events, but it can shift the way you see the world.” Unlike happy or meaningful experiences, rich experiences are not always pleasant or purposeful. “College is a good example. It’s not always fun, and you might not always feel a deep sense of meaning, but it changes how you think,” Westgate said. “The same goes for experiences like living through a hurricane. You wouldn’t call it happy or even meaningful, but it shakes up your perspective.” Researchers in Westgate’s lab at UF have been studying how people respond to events like hurricanes, tracking students’ emotions and reactions as storms approach. The results show that many people have viewed these challenging experiences as psychologically rich — altering how they saw the world, even if they didn’t enjoy them. The roots of the idea While the study is new, the concept has been years in the making. Westgate and Oishi first introduced the term “psychologically rich life” in 2022, building on earlier research and scale development around 2015. Their latest paper expands the idea, showing that the concept resonates with people across cultures and fills a gap in how people define well-being. “In psychology and philosophy, dating back to Aristotle, there’s been a focus on hedonic versus eudaimonic well-being — happiness versus meaning,” Westgate said. “What we’re doing is saying, there’s another path that’s just as important. And for some people, it’s the one they value most.” While many people ideally want all three — happiness, meaning and richness — there are trade-offs. Rich experiences often come at the cost of comfort or clarity. “Interesting experiences aren’t always pleasant experiences,” Westgate said. “But they’re the ones that help us grow and see the world in new ways.” Westgate hopes the study will broaden how psychologists and the public think about what it means to live well. “We’re not saying happiness and meaning aren’t important,” Westgate said. “They are. But we’re also saying don’t forget about richness. Some of the most important experiences in life are the ones that challenge us, that surprise us and that make us see the world differently.”

View all posts
Powered by