“…For instance, it has been applied to understand how people evaluate information on smart phones (Carr & Stefaniak, 2012), personal social networking sites (e.g., Antheunis & Schouten, 2011; Fox, Warber, & Makstaller, 2013), online dating sites (e.g., Gibbs, Ellison, & Lai, 2011), product rating sites (e.g., Flanagin & Metzger, 2013; Willemsen, Neijens, & Bronner, 2012), e-commerce sites (e.g., Johnson, Vang, & Van Der Heide, 2015), corporate social media sites (Lillqvist & Louhiala-Salminen, 2014), and commercial sperm bank sites (Bokek-Cohen, 2015). These studies, and many others (e.g., Hall, Pennington, & Lueders, 2014; Hong, Tandoc, Kim, Kim, & Wise, 2012; Pennington & Hall, 2014; Utz, 2010; Van Der Heide, Johnson, & Vang, 2013; Walther, Van Der Heide, Kim, Westerman, & Tong, 2008), help demonstrate the explanatory range and predictive scope of warranting theory, and make important contributions to our understanding of how people evaluate information online. However, a common limitation is shared in almost all studies that use warranting theory as an explanatory mechanism: Perceptions of warranting value are not measured.…”