Beauty filters, selfies, and the psychology of altered appearance
Beauty filters change the visual information people receive about faces and bodies. A filter can smooth skin, enlarge eyes, alter facial proportions, change perceived age, apply virtual makeup, slim a face, or reshape a body. A selfie can then be retaken, selected, edited, posted, evaluated by others, and revisited. These actions create distinctive opportunities for appearance comparison: people compare themselves with other people's enhanced images and with digitally modified versions of their own appearance. The psychological outcomes depend on what is altered, why it is altered, how frequently the image is evaluated, the person's preexisting concerns, and the social context.
Experimental studies indicate that certain forms of selfie-taking, retouching, and exposure to altered images can increase immediate appearance dissatisfaction or negative mood. Observational studies associate greater editing involvement with appearance comparison, self-objectification, and lower appearance-related self-evaluation. These findings establish a credible potential for harm under particular conditions while leaving important questions about long-term effects, individual vulnerability, and protective practices open. The strongest conclusion is specific: digitally altered self-presentation can shift the standards against which an individual evaluates an ordinary, unfiltered appearance. Mills et al., 2018; Tiggemann, Anderberg, and Brown, 2020; Schroeder and Behm-Morawitz, 2025.
What counts as a beauty filter or edited selfie?
Filters, retouching, and computational face alteration
A beauty filter is a digital operation that changes the displayed appearance of a person, often in real time through augmented reality or after a photograph has been taken. Some filters modify lighting or color only. Appearance-transforming filters change skin texture, facial geometry, symmetry cues, facial hair, makeup, apparent age, or body proportions. AI-assisted filters may use learned image patterns to synthesize details instead of merely applying a fixed color adjustment. The relevant psychological exposure is the resulting visual transformation, rather than the marketing label attached to its software.
Selfie editing encompasses selecting among many shots, cropping, applying preset filters, modifying particular features, and deciding which version represents the self in a social context. A retouched image might be privately stored, transmitted to friends, displayed on a dating profile, or posted to an audience whose reactions are numerically visible. Each setting has different consequences for anticipated judgment and feedback. A lighting correction is not psychologically identical to replacing perceived facial characteristics with a narrow beauty ideal.
Photo editing has both expressive and appearance-regulatory uses. People may edit for play, creativity, identity exploration, accessibility, cultural aesthetics, privacy, or professional presentation. They may also edit to reduce anticipated criticism or conform to appearance standards. Those motivations can coexist, and the fact that somebody uses a filter is not a clinical symptom. The research question concerns the conditions under which modification becomes tied to self-worth, perceived appearance deficits, and repetitive comparison.
Facial dissatisfaction and overall body image
Body image is a multidimensional system of appearance perceptions, appraisals, emotions, and behavior. It includes the face and skin as well as weight, shape, and other bodily features. Facial dissatisfaction is dissatisfaction focused on one or more facial characteristics; body dissatisfaction is the broader unfavorable evaluation of one's appearance or body. Appearance self-esteem describes the value or confidence placed in one's looks, while global self-esteem covers the person more broadly. Immediate changes in facial satisfaction need not produce an equal change in overall body satisfaction or global self-worth.
A central distinction is between a temporary state, such as feeling less attractive after seeing an edited portrait, and a persistent trait or disorder. Researchers frequently assess state appearance dissatisfaction immediately after a task. These outcomes matter because repeated negative states can affect behavior, but a short experiment does not prove enduring psychiatric illness. Ozimek et al., 2023; Tiggemann, Anderberg, and Brown, 2020.
Why filters can change appearance expectations
Comparing the unfiltered self with an edited self
Traditional social-comparison research studies evaluation against other people. Beauty filters introduce a second reference point: a person sees an altered version of their own face and may treat that version as an attainable standard. The visual resemblance between the filtered and unfiltered portrait can intensify identification with the idealized image. After returning to a mirror or an unmodified camera, normal facial texture, asymmetry, or age-related features may become more noticeable because of contrast with the edited image.
This sequence is better conceptualized as self-referential appearance comparison than as literal damage to visual perception. An experiment with 187 social media users compared using a face-slimming filter, watching another person use such a filter, and using a neutral filter. Comparison processes were especially strong when participants altered their own images. The same study found changes in weight-related attitudes and self-objectification outcomes, although its particular experimental sample and filter cannot establish universal effects across all platforms. The investigators proposed the term social self-comparison for this within-person comparison mechanism. Schroeder and Behm-Morawitz, 2025.
The mechanism also illustrates why a seemingly positive immediate experience can coexist with later discomfort. An edited portrait may feel pleasing, playful, or reassuring in the moment. Disappointment may emerge when the unfiltered image is evaluated against the newly salient alternative. Pleasure during editing and dissatisfaction afterward are distinct outcomes requiring separate measurement.
Appearance ideals and self-discrepancy
A filter's beauty standard is embedded in the features it preferentially changes. Repeated enlargement of eyes, smoothing of skin, narrowing of facial structures, or reduction of apparent age can make a particular appearance seem familiar and desirable. Internalization occurs when these externally supplied standards become personal criteria for self-evaluation. Self-discrepancy emerges when someone perceives a gap between their actual appearance and what they believe they should look like.
A digitally optimized face may set an expectation that is technically achievable on screen but biologically, socially, or practically unrealistic in ordinary lighting and movement. This matters when someone begins to evaluate actual social encounters through the standard of a composite digital image. Experimental evidence supports short-term evaluation shifts; claims that filters permanently reset all users' beauty standards are not established. Social and cultural meanings of an alteration vary, so the same filter can carry different implications across communities and individuals.
Self-objectification and appearance surveillance
Self-objectification involves evaluating the body from an imagined observer's perspective. Appearance surveillance refers to repeated attention to how the body looks to other people. Taking multiple selfies, inspecting them at high magnification, editing a feature, and anticipating likes or comments can turn appearance into a continuous object of evaluation. Such behavior may crowd out attention to bodily function, relationships, and the actual purpose of an interaction.
In a questionnaire study with 403 participants, photo-editing behavior was associated with lower perceived attractiveness and self-esteem through statistical pathways involving appearance comparison and self-objectification. The authors used mediation modeling, but their cross-sectional design does not establish the temporal order of the psychological processes. Editing may heighten surveillance, existing surveillance may motivate more editing, and both may be influenced by other factors. Ozimek et al., 2023.
Impression management and social feedback
Selfies are also social communications. People choose when to post, which image to show, and what aspects of their identity to emphasize. When appearance-related posts receive visible metrics, viewers can interpret engagement as information about attractiveness or belonging. Anticipating evaluation may increase retakes, checking, and avoidance of unedited images. The social meaning of feedback depends on relationships, norms, platform design, and whether numerical engagement is mistaken for a measure of human worth.
An edited photograph is therefore simultaneously an image, a self-representation, and a social event. Separating these components clarifies the evidence: exposure studies test the visual comparison, editing experiments test a behavior, and surveys of posting practices capture the broader feedback ecology. General research on social media and body image offers relevant background but does not replace direct tests of beauty-filter mechanics. de Valle et al., 2021.
What experimental studies show
Taking and posting selfies
Mills and colleagues randomly assigned 110 female undergraduate students to take and upload an unretouched selfie, take and upload a selected and retouched selfie, or complete a control activity. Participants in the selfie conditions reported more anxiety and lower feelings of confidence and physical attractiveness after the task than participants in the control condition. The adverse immediate pattern persisted even where participants could retake and retouch the image. This finding challenges the assumption that giving people more editing control necessarily protects their body image. It does not show that every selfie causes harm or that a temporary response persists over months. Mills et al., 2018.
Another experiment studied 130 women ages 18–30 and directly examined selfie editing and body dissatisfaction. Editing one's selfie was associated with increases in negative mood and facial dissatisfaction, and greater editing involvement predicted larger increases in facial dissatisfaction. The experimental design helps distinguish what happened around the editing task from the general profile of habitual users. However, participant recruitment, laboratory conditions, and a narrow age range limit generalization. Tiggemann, Anderberg, and Brown, 2020.
Exposure to manipulated photographs
In a randomized experiment with 144 adolescent girls ages 14–18, Kleemans and colleagues compared original and manipulated Instagram-style photographs. Exposure to retouched and reshaped images produced lower body-image ratings, with greater vulnerability among participants more inclined toward social comparison. The manipulated images were also evaluated positively, while observers did not consistently detect the full extent of reshaping. These results connect image alteration, perceived realism, and immediate evaluation. Kleemans et al., 2018.
The ability to detect a filter is important but incomplete as protection. Knowing that a picture is edited may reduce some misleading inferences; visual comparison can still occur quickly or automatically. Research must test whether disclosure changes the actual emotional response rather than assuming that awareness alone removes it. A comparison between highly idealized imagery and ordinary imagery may also reflect beauty-ideal exposure more generally, which is why appropriate control images are essential.
Direct experiments with augmented-reality beauty filters
A 2026 experiment by Dietel and Vocks randomly assigned 91 women to view unmodified or beauty-filtered images of their own face or another person's face. The study compared specific filters, including a youth-promoting effect and a glamour effect, and measured immediate body dissatisfaction, appearance-related conviction, affect, and self-esteem. Exposure to another person's face modified with the youth-promoting filter increased body dissatisfaction and the conviction of being unattractive relative to the alternative filter condition. Other contrasts were statistically nonsignificant, and BDD symptom scores and comparison tendencies did not predict differential reactivity to filters in the tested comparisons. This is evidence for filter-specific and context-specific responses, not a blanket conclusion about all AR filters. Dietel and Vocks, 2026.
In the face-slimming experiment by Schroeder and Behm-Morawitz, participants who used a slimming beauty filter showed stronger self-comparison responses than participants who observed someone else's use. The authors also reported effects on desire for weight loss, self-objectification, and anti-fat attitudes. A single experimental filter and relatively small sample leave the size and persistence of effects across contexts unresolved. A finding about participants' weight-related judgments should not be converted into a judgment about anyone's weight or health. Schroeder and Behm-Morawitz, 2025.
Why the evidence is stronger for short-term effects
The most informative experiments manipulate one element while holding others relatively constant and measure outcomes before and after exposure. Their internal validity can be valuable, but the post-task interval is often brief and the outcome is self-reported dissatisfaction. A lasting clinical consequence requires follow-up, attention to baseline vulnerability, and replication in heterogeneous populations. Individual studies also differ in editing intensity, image type, model identity, exposure duration, manipulation awareness, and posting context. Pooling them conceptually without noting those differences can create a misleading impression of one uniform effect.
The wider causal literature remains relevant. Four meta-analyses by de Valle and colleagues assembled experimental and longitudinal studies on social-media appearance content, contextual cues, and body image. These syntheses support careful investigation of appearance-focused social media exposures while revealing the importance of different designs and comparators. Because most included work was not specifically about live beauty filters, it cannot supply a definitive effect size for every filtering practice. de Valle et al., 2021.
Observational research and newer AI-assisted filters
Editing frequency, anxiety, and appearance self-esteem
A cross-sectional investigation published in 2023 linked photo editing to perceived attractiveness and global self-esteem through modeled relationships with comparison and objectification. Two studies reported in 2026 examined AI beauty-filter use in samples of 468 social media users and 312 users of a particular editing app. Their findings connected greater filter use with poorer appearance-related evaluations and fear of negative appearance judgment, with surveillance relevant to the associations. Such studies extend the research beyond older manual-retouching interfaces but do not establish that filter use itself caused the reported differences. Ozimek et al., 2023; Garg et al., 2026.
Self-selection is a central issue. People who already feel dissatisfied may edit more often; editing may increase dissatisfaction; platform norms, peer criticism, appearance investment, and mental health symptoms may influence both. Longitudinal and within-person studies that establish time order are needed to separate these possibilities. Investigators should distinguish active alteration from merely using an app, because an unmodified selfie and an algorithmically transformed image represent meaningfully different experiences.
AI-generated imagery and filter realism
AI-assisted transformations can produce a coherent-looking face that changes multiple features simultaneously. Realistic video filtering adds moving expressions and continuously visible alteration. These technical properties may change the plausibility of a modified reference image, the difficulty of detecting modification, and exposure frequency. These are mechanistic hypotheses that require direct testing. Findings about conventional photo filters should not automatically be generalized to synthetic faces, fully AI-generated influencers, or virtual companions. Each constitutes a distinct exposure with its own social meaning and research design.
A useful distinction is between self-image transformation, where a person's image remains the input, and an AI-generated appearance ideal, where the depicted person may never have existed. The former can support comparison with an edited version of oneself; the latter primarily supplies a social or cultural comparison target. Both can participate in shaping norms, but their psychological pathways should be empirically separated.
Who may experience different effects?
Adolescence and emerging adulthood
Adolescence brings changes in identity, peer belonging, body development, and sensitivity to social evaluation. Appearance-focused digital interactions may become important at precisely the time when comparisons and self-concepts are changing. The experiment with 144 girls indicates that manipulated peers' images can alter immediate body image within this population. It does not establish a uniform effect for all adolescents, nor a diagnosis caused by exposure. Developmentally appropriate research should attend to puberty, identity, platform experience, family and peer environments, and the ethics of involving minors. Kleemans et al., 2018.
A young person may understand that a filter is artificial and still internalize the idea that their natural appearance needs correction before public display. Educational conversations become more useful when they explore the pressure to edit and the emotions surrounding posting rather than simply telling a teenager that all images are fake.
Gender, racialization, culture, and visible differences
Much experimental evidence comes from samples of girls or young adult women. That concentration reflects a research-history limitation rather than proof that other groups are unaffected. Men face appearance pressures that may involve muscularity, hair, skin, height, or facial structure; gender-diverse people may navigate additional forms of scrutiny and identity expression. Individuals of different racial and ethnic backgrounds may encounter filters that privilege specific skin tones or facial conventions. The effect of any particular feature depends on cultural meanings and personal histories.
Research should test differential validity across groups, instead of assuming that a standardized beauty score reflects universal attractiveness. A filter that lightens skin or changes facial features can reproduce existing colorist or racialized hierarchies. A person with scars, acne, facial difference, disability, or age-related changes may use filters for diverse reasons, including privacy and self-expression. Visible difference and filter use are not themselves psychological disorders. Stigma, exclusion, and exposure to rigid beauty standards are scientifically relevant social contexts.
Individual differences and vulnerabilities
Several variables deserve examination: appearance-comparison tendency, internalization of ideals, body surveillance, preexisting body dissatisfaction, perfectionism, fear of negative evaluation, and feedback-seeking. Associations can vary with personality and social setting. The 2026 filter experiment found some overall relationships with body dissatisfaction, while its exploratory analyses did not show that trait BDD symptoms or upward comparison predicted differential filter reactivity. This result illustrates why plausible moderators must be empirically demonstrated for each outcome. Dietel and Vocks, 2026.
Measurement and the meaning of research findings
Researchers should record the exact visual manipulation, intensity, duration, whether an image depicts the self or others, and whether participants choose, edit, post, or merely view the content. Relevant outcomes include immediate facial or body satisfaction, positive and negative affect, appearance-related beliefs, behavior after exposure, comparison frequency, and psychological functioning. Generic total screen time is too imprecise to establish the mechanisms of a specific facial filter.
Validated body-image measures can assess aspects of dissatisfaction, appreciation, or appearance investment. State visual analog ratings may capture brief changes around a task, while longer instruments examine habitual experiences. Qualitative interviews can reveal how individuals interpret the gap between filtered and unfiltered images. Repeated daily sampling can assess situations, motivations, and changing feelings in ordinary life. Longitudinal work must distinguish whether editing precedes distress or distress precedes editing.
A statistical mediator is not automatically a proven causal mechanism. Cross-sectional studies may find that self-objectification statistically accounts for part of an association between editing and self-esteem, even when no temporal sequence has been observed. Reproducible mechanisms require designs that manipulate or measure intermediary processes in a defensible temporal order. Pre-registration, adequate statistical power, representative recruitment, cultural measurement equivalence, and transparent reporting of nonsignificant results all improve inference.
Clinical boundaries: when appearance concerns warrant assessment
Ordinary appearance concerns, dissatisfaction, and anxiety
Occasionally disliking an unfiltered image, preferring a flattering photograph, or feeling self-conscious on camera belongs to ordinary human experience. Body dissatisfaction describes negative evaluation and can vary from mild to severe. Appearance anxiety involves worry about scrutiny or judgment. Neither is identical to a clinical diagnosis. The degree of distress, functional interference, repetitive behavior, persistence, and broader history determine whether a formal assessment is appropriate.
Beauty-filter research often uses phrases such as dysmorphic tendencies or body dysmorphia in nonclinical questionnaires. These labels do not establish body dysmorphic disorder. A screening score, experimental appearance conviction, or interest in cosmetic change must never be converted into a diagnosis without a competent clinical evaluation.
Body dysmorphic disorder, eating disorders, and social anxiety
Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) involves a persistent preoccupation with perceived appearance defects that are unobservable or appear slight to others, accompanied by repetitive behaviors or mental acts, and clinically significant distress or impairment. Repeated mirror checking, reassurance seeking, comparison, or camouflaging may occur. Body image concerns related mainly to weight or shape in the context of eating-disorder criteria require a separate diagnostic assessment. Social anxiety disorder centers on fear of social scrutiny or negative evaluation and can overlap with appearance-related fears. The appropriate diagnosis depends on the full symptom pattern and clinical history.
Beauty filters may enter these patterns as one context for checking or concealment, but filter use alone is no evidence of BDD. Research demonstrating transient dissatisfaction after exposure does not show that a platform causes BDD. Clinicians assess duration, conviction, insight, repetitive rituals, impairment, comorbidity, and safety, and they use established diagnostic standards. Guidance for OCD and BDD recommends appropriate assessment and evidence-based care, including cognitive behavioral therapy targeting BDD processes and medication when indicated. NICE CG31.
Cosmetic expectations and clinical decision-making
A filter can present an imagined cosmetic outcome with perfectly uniform texture or proportions that physical procedures cannot reproduce. Bringing a filtered image to a consultation may help communicate preferences, but clinicians need to clarify what the image represents and whether the expected result is biologically realistic. A 2024 systematic review of social-media exposure, body image, and cosmetic surgery consideration included 25 studies and 13,731 participants; heterogeneity and observational components limit strong causal conclusions. Cosmetic-procedure interest is not, by itself, evidence of psychopathology. When severe distress, persistent preoccupation, or functional impairment is present, referral for mental health assessment is important before making irreversible decisions. Mironica et al., 2024.
Prevention and psychologically informed responses
Changing the comparison environment
One practical response is to reduce repeated exposure to narrowly idealized, heavily modified appearance feeds and include a wider range of ordinary bodies and faces. The goal is to adjust the conditions of comparison rather than demand constant positive feelings about appearance. Users can observe whether a particular filtering routine leads to scrutiny, self-criticism, or avoidance of unedited photographs, and can choose alternate practices accordingly. These choices are plausible applications of the mechanisms studied; their individual effectiveness should be evaluated rather than assumed.
An experiment comparing body-positive captions with different image types found that accompanying text did not consistently override the effect of the visual content. This suggests that simply adding reassuring words to a feed of idealized images may have limited value. Diversity in the visual material itself deserves attention. Tiggemann, Anderberg, and Brown, 2020.
Media literacy and realistic image expectations
Media literacy can help people identify geometry-changing retouching, automated smoothing, selective lighting, and algorithmic beauty defaults. The crucial skill is understanding the production of the image and the standard it implicitly proposes. A familiar-looking portrait can contain substantial modification. Recognition should be linked to reflection on comparison: what happens emotionally when the edited image becomes the benchmark for a mirror reflection?
Schools, families, platforms, and clinicians can discuss appearance-based metrics, comment practices, disclosure of manipulation, diversity in representation, and respectful norms around posting. Media literacy is a plausible component of prevention, but evidence for particular filter-specific educational programs remains limited. The strongest available research assesses immediate responses to exposures and editing, not the long-term effectiveness of every commonly suggested strategy.
Practical self-monitoring without increasing checking
A brief experiment in daily routine can help distinguish enjoyable expression from distress-maintaining habits. A person can notice how they feel before and after editing or posting and whether the process interferes with time, sleep, social activities, or willingness to appear naturally in photographs. Patterns are more informative than a single uncomfortable moment. Repeated checking of tiny facial details may itself increase vigilance, so helpful reflection should remain proportionate and oriented toward functioning.
For a person seeking professional help, treatment depends on the assessed difficulty. Appearance-related rumination may be addressed through cognitive and behavioral approaches; BDD requires BDD-specific clinical care, and eating disorders require dedicated assessment and treatment pathways. Claims that simply deleting a filter cures a diagnosed disorder have no adequate clinical basis. NICE CG31.
What remains uncertain in the evidence
The short-term experimental literature is informative, but sustained prospective evidence about specific filters remains comparatively thin. Many studies enroll women from university or adolescent samples, rely on self-report, and test a limited selection of apps or features. A particular effect may depend on whether the manipulation is obvious, personalized, weight-related, age-related, or strongly aligned with local beauty standards. Novel AI filters change rapidly, which complicates replication and makes an old interface a poor proxy for current exposures.
Several open questions deserve direct research. Does repeated exposure to one's modified face change behavior after weeks or months? Does changing the number of retakes matter independently of visual alteration? Can in-app disclosures reduce self-comparison? Do social-media algorithms intensify specific ideals through repeated recommendations? Which protective factors are effective across diverse cultural and disability contexts? What happens when filters are removed from video calls after long habitual use? Strong answers require randomized or longitudinal designs, preregistered outcomes, and independent replication.
The evidence supports a contextual account of risk. Appearance editing can facilitate expression, creativity, connection, and play; it can also heighten appearance-based comparison and distress. The scientifically relevant issue is the relationship among visual manipulation, personal investment in appearance, perceived standards, and the social environment. A prevention strategy should address those mechanisms without pathologizing ordinary image-making or creating new rules about what a person must look like.
Frequently asked questions
Do beauty filters cause body dissatisfaction?
Specific laboratory exposures and editing tasks have caused short-term increases in dissatisfaction in certain samples. The size and direction of effects vary by filter, participant, and comparator. Longer-term causal conclusions about habitual filter use require more robust longitudinal and experimental evidence. Dietel and Vocks, 2026; Mills et al., 2018.
Why might my real face look different after I use a filter?
A filtered face supplies a recent reference for comparison. When skin texture, proportions, lighting, or apparent age have been altered, the unfiltered image may feel unfamiliar or disappointing by contrast. This is a plausible cognitive-affective comparison process, not evidence that the person's actual features changed or that a perceptual disorder exists. Schroeder and Behm-Morawitz, 2025.
Are selfies harmful even without retouching?
In some experiments, taking and posting an unretouched selfie increased immediate appearance-related discomfort relative to a control activity. The act of selecting an image for evaluation can make appearance more salient. Effects depend on context and do not apply uniformly to all people or every selfie. Mills et al., 2018.
Is using a beauty filter a sign of body dysmorphic disorder?
No single filtering habit establishes BDD. Diagnosis requires a clinical evaluation of characteristic preoccupation, repetitive behaviors or mental acts, distress or impairment, and relevant differentials. Filter use can occur with or without any disorder. NICE CG31.
Do AI beauty filters have effects different from ordinary filters?
AI techniques can make transformations more realistic or comprehensive. Direct studies are emerging, including observational work in 2026. Comparative evidence is not yet sufficient to assign one general mental-health effect to every AI-assisted filter or to conclude that the technology label itself is the causal ingredient. Garg et al., 2026.
Can recognizing that an image is filtered protect body image?
Recognizing alteration supports informed interpretation, but manipulated images can still influence comparison. Evidence for disclosure as an independent and reliably effective intervention is limited. Research must distinguish recognizing a filter from a measurable reduction in appearance dissatisfaction. Kleemans et al., 2018.
Related Articles
Body Image Psychology: Definition, Components, and Development — the multidimensional framework for understanding appearance evaluation.
Appearance Comparison: Why We Compare Looks and What Research Shows — comparison processes underlying altered-image reference points.
Self-Objectification and Body Surveillance: Mechanisms and Effects — monitoring appearance through an imagined observer's perspective.
Social Media and Body Image: Appearance Comparison, Ideals, and Mental Health — the broader digital exposure literature, maintained by Digital Life and Attention.
Hair Color, Identity, and Self-Presentation: How Appearance Becomes a Social Signal — appearance modification as social and identity communication.
References
De Valle, M. K., Gallego-García, M., Williamson, P., and Wade, T. D. (2021). Social media, body image, and the question of causation: Meta-analyses of experimental and longitudinal evidence. Body Image. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2021.10.001
Dietel, F. A., and Vocks, S. (2026). #Filter or #NoFilter? State effects of beauty filter exposure on body dissatisfaction and associated cognitive-affective factors. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 50, 101027. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2026.101027
Fardouly, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Vartanian, L. R., and Halliwell, E. (2015). Social comparisons on social media: The impact of Facebook on young women's body image concerns and mood. Body Image, 13, 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2014.12.002
Garg, A., Goel, P., Rana, N. P., and Mishra, A. (2026). AI beauty filters, and appearance self-esteem: An empirical investigation. Journal of Consumer Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.70141
Kleemans, M., Daalmans, S., Carbaat, I., and Anschütz, D. (2018). Picture perfect: The direct effect of manipulated Instagram photos on body image in adolescent girls. Media Psychology, 21(1), 93–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/15213269.2016.1257392
Mills, J. S., Musto, S., Williams, L., and Tiggemann, M. (2018). “Selfie” harm: Effects on mood and body image in young women. Body Image, 27, 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2018.08.007
Mironica, A., et al. (2024). Social media influence on body image and cosmetic surgery considerations: A systematic review. Cureus. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65626
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2005, updated guidance). Obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder: Treatment (CG31). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg31/chapter/Recommendations
Ozimek, P., Lainas, S., Bierhoff, H.-W., and Rohmann, E. (2023). How photo editing in social media shapes self-perceived attractiveness and self-esteem via self-objectification and physical appearance comparisons. BMC Psychology, 11, 99. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01143-0
Schroeder, M., and Behm-Morawitz, E. (2025). Digitally curated beauty: The impact of slimming beauty filters on body image, weight loss desire, self-objectification, and anti-fat attitudes. Computers in Human Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108519
Tiggemann, M., and Anderberg, I. (2020). Social media is not real: The effect of ‘Instagram vs reality’ images on women's social comparison and body image. New Media and Society, 22(12). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819888720
Tiggemann, M., Anderberg, I., and Brown, Z. (2020). #Loveyourbody: The effect of body positive Instagram captions on women's body image. Body Image, 33, 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.02.015
Tiggemann, M., Anderberg, I., and Brown, Z. (2020). Uploading your best self: Selfie editing and body dissatisfaction. Body Image, 33, 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2020.03.002