"Researchers have sought to understand and explain the core differences between computer-mediated and FtF communication processes (for reviews, see Caplan 2001, 2003; Hancock & Dunham, 2001; Ramirez, Walther, Burgoon, & Sunnafrank, 2002; Riva, 2002; Walther, 199,, 2004; Walther, Anderson, & Park, 1994; Walther & Parks, 2002). Among the earliest theories to emerge was the cues-filtered-out perspective (Culnan & Markus, 1987; also see Walther & Parks, 2002), which suggested that some forms of CMC are less personal than FtF activity because of the reduced number of contextual and nonverbal cues available in text-based online social interaction. The cues-filtered-out perspective asserts that the diminished available cues available in CMC create a heightened sense of anonymity, which leads to a more impersonal communication exchange than is present in FtF interaction. As Ramirez and Burgoon (2004) note, however, researchers have moved away from early perspectives focusing solely on cue deficits, toward more sophisticated theories that consider the cognitive and behavioral mechanisms people use to compensate for the lack of cues available in text-based CMC. One particularly influential theoretical perspective that describes how CMC and FtF processes differ is Walther's (1996) hyperpersonal communication perspective. According to Walther, interpersonal CMC can become hyperpersonal because it affords message sender a host of communicative advantages over traditional FtF interaction. Compared to ordinary FtF situations, due to the reduced number of available nonverbal cues, a hyperpersonal message sender has a greater ability to strategically develop and edit self-presentation, enabling a selective and optimized presentation of oneself to others (Walther, 1996, Walther & Burgoon, 1992). This process then allows senders to selectively control the quantity, quality, and even validity of personal information available to other participants (e.g., age, race, physical appearance, sex), to form idealized impressions of their partners and, consequently, engage in more intimate exchanges than people in FtF situations (Tidwell & Walther; 2002; Walther, 1993, 1996 Walther & Burgoon, 1992)."