What body checking and reassurance seeking mean
Body checking is repeated inspection, measurement, comparison, or evaluation of one's body or appearance, often motivated by uncertainty or distress about how one looks. Reassurance seeking involves repeatedly asking other people, or consulting other sources, to confirm that a perceived flaw is absent, unimportant, or unlikely to provoke rejection. These processes can become appearance-related safety behaviors: actions intended to prevent an anticipated negative evaluation or obtain certainty about physical appearance.
The scientific focus is the behavior's function. Looking in a mirror before leaving home, examining a new medical symptom, asking a friend about an outfit, or tracking a health measurement may have clear and bounded purposes. Appearance monitoring becomes psychologically consequential when checking expands beyond a practical question, repeatedly targets a feared defect, proves difficult to stop, increases distress, or interferes with daily life. A person may examine a feature under several lights, ask for reassurance, then repeat the sequence when uncertainty returns.
Checking and reassurance seeking are psychological processes, not independent diagnoses. They occur across ordinary appearance concerns, body dissatisfaction, body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), eating disorders, and some anxiety presentations. Their clinical meaning depends on the person's preoccupations, beliefs, impairment, emotional response, and other symptoms. The 2025 transdiagnostic systematic review by Hofschröer and colleagues found that checking commonly follows adverse emotional states, while evidence for immediate relief after checking was inconsistent. A single simple account of how every check affects emotion is therefore scientifically inadequate. Hofschröer et al., 2025.
Forms of appearance monitoring
Mirror checking and reflective surfaces
Repeated mirror checking may include prolonged scrutiny of a perceived skin defect, repeated examination of facial symmetry, checking from multiple angles, or moving between mirrors to compare images. Ordinary visual variation produced by lighting and distance may be treated as meaningful evidence that a feature has changed. Some people use mirrors frequently, while others alternate intense checking with avoidance.
In a foundational study, Veale and Riley compared 52 people with BDD and 55 controls. Participants with BDD described motivations such as wanting to know exactly how they looked, hoping the reflection would be different, and fearing increased distress if they resisted looking. They also concentrated on selected features and internal impressions. The study described a distinctive pattern of mirror gazing, although its design did not establish that mirror checking causes BDD. Veale and Riley, 200100102-9).
Photographs, cameras, and repeated inspection
A phone camera can function as a portable mirror. Repeated retakes, zooming into selected features, comparing images from different dates, studying video frames, or switching between filtered and unfiltered images can be forms of checking when they are used to settle a feared appearance question. The same actions can also serve artistic, social, professional, or ordinary self-presentation purposes. Research and clinical assessment should identify the motive, emotional context, and consequences rather than classifying the technology itself.
Photographs are particularly vulnerable to differences in lens, distance, angle, lighting, expression, and processing. A person's attempt to derive a final verdict about attractiveness from inconsistent images can increase uncertainty. Repeated inspection may create new questions, even after the original question has received extensive attention. Evaluating images as objective measures of personal worth or social acceptance exceeds the information that photographs can supply.
Weighing, measuring, touching, and clothing-based checks
Checking can involve repeated weighing, measuring body parts, touching muscles or bones, comparing garment fit, testing silhouettes, or pinching tissue. Such patterns are studied in the context of weight- and shape-related concerns, including eating disorders. Practical health monitoring, clinician-directed measurements, and appearance rituals may resemble one another externally while having different functions. The purpose, urgency, repetition, and associated distress must be assessed.
A systematic review of 52 studies, including 34 in a meta-analysis, found substantially greater checking among eating-disorder samples than healthy controls. The meta-analysis included only female samples, which limits direct generalization to men and gender-diverse groups. These results support the relevance of body checking to eating-disorder assessment without turning the act of weighing into a diagnostic criterion on its own. Nikodijevic et al., 2018.
Comparisons and covert checking
Some appearance checking has no visible measuring instrument. A person may mentally compare their face with remembered images, scan other people's bodies for a reference point, search for evidence in others' facial expressions, or replay a conversation to determine whether a perceived flaw was noticed. These processes overlap with appearance comparison and self-focused attention. Their distinguishing feature is the intention to resolve a feared appearance judgment.
Repeated grooming, concealing a feature, or adjusting clothes can also serve a checking function when it is driven by a belief that leaving the appearance unchanged would invite unacceptable consequences. Grooming itself is a normal activity. Clinical formulations examine what the behavior is trying to prevent, how much choice the person experiences, and what happens when the action cannot be completed.
Reassurance seeking as an interpersonal process
Why one answer can lead to another question
Appearance reassurance may take the form of repeatedly asking whether a flaw is noticeable, whether the person's face looks different, whether other people were staring, or whether a photograph should be posted. An answer may be accepted briefly, then questioned. A short response can appear insufficient; a detailed response can be interpreted as compensatory kindness; silence can become feared evidence of disapproval.
The psychological task may be impossible: obtaining certainty about what every observer thinks and how every future encounter will unfold. Other people can offer honest impressions, practical advice, and emotional care, but they cannot provide universal guarantees. When a reassurance ritual requires such guarantees, repetition may become independent of how accurately the original question was answered.
Reassurance and social support have different functions
Asking for comfort during a difficult day, requesting help with an actual problem, or receiving sensitive feedback can support well-being. Repetitive appearance reassurance is more concerning when it is urgent, rigid, and difficult to stop, when an answer loses its effect immediately, or when loved ones become responsible for neutralizing recurring doubts. Clinical guidance for BDD specifically addresses family involvement in compulsive behavior and reassurance seeking. It recommends helping relatives reduce accommodation sensitively as part of treatment. NICE, CG31.
Reducing participation in a ritual can coexist with warmth, respect, and practical help. Support can focus on the person's distress, values, functioning, and treatment goals without repeatedly debating whether a feature is attractive. Family interactions require collaboration, especially when loved ones have been answering reassurance questions out of care and are themselves distressed by changes to established patterns.
Reassurance in digital environments
Comments, image ratings, social-media reactions, anonymous communities, search engines, and conversational AI systems can become sources of appearance reassurance. The availability of immediate feedback may facilitate frequent requests, but its psychological impact depends on how the person uses it. An attractiveness score or generated evaluation reflects limitations of images, algorithms, contexts, and culturally conditioned judgments; it is not an objective assessment of personal worth.
Digital reassurance may also become an escalating search through conflicting judgments. An initially reassuring answer is outweighed by a negative comment, and the person seeks additional opinions to resolve the discrepancy. These patterns deserve direct investigation. Research on algorithm-specific appearance distress is developing, and a broad claim that any one application causes compulsive appearance behavior would exceed the available evidence.
The psychological cycle of monitoring and distress
Triggers and attention narrowing
A perceived appearance threat can follow a comment, photograph, social encounter, comparison, bodily sensation, or anticipated event. Attention then narrows toward the feared feature. The person may interpret ambiguous details as evidence of a defect while giving less weight to the overall appearance or the context. Shame, anxiety, disgust, or sadness can increase the apparent urgency of checking.
A 2024 scientific review of safety behaviors in BDD synthesizes work on mirror checking, grooming, reassurance seeking, and avoidance. Cognitive-behavioral accounts propose that these behaviors participate in the maintenance of appearance preoccupation. However, evidence varies by method and by the specific behavior being studied, and causal processes require longitudinal and experimental tests. Patel, Summers, and Cougle, 2024.
Uncertainty, interpretation, and the demand for a verdict
Checking may produce new sensory information while leaving the central fear unchanged. A mirror reveals a reflection but cannot prove that a stranger will approve of the person. A friend can give an honest answer but cannot guarantee universal acceptance. When the standard for ending the inquiry is emotional certainty, further evidence may be treated as necessary even though the underlying question has no definitive answer.
The person may develop rules such as needing to check every angle, asking several people, or comparing a feature until it feels right. The pattern can then acquire a ritualized form. The underlying belief is often more important than the particular tool: checking a mirror, checking a photograph, and mentally comparing an image can all serve the same demand for reassurance.
Does checking provide immediate relief?
The influential negative-reinforcement model suggests that distress prompts checking, checking briefly reduces distress, and the temporary reward encourages repetition. This model has informed cognitive-behavioral treatment and research across eating disorders and BDD. Its predictions must nevertheless be tested rather than assumed.
Hofschröer, Vivell, Vocks, and Hartmann systematically reviewed 43 studies of checking across eating disorders, BDD, and illness anxiety disorder. They found support for increased negative emotion or reduced positive emotion around the period preceding checking. Evidence for immediate emotional relief was inconsistent, and findings about subsequent effects differed by disorder, design, and observation period. The results motivate attention to the timing of assessments, type of check, and individual differences. Hofschröer et al., 2025.
A person may feel briefly relieved, more distressed immediately, or both reassured and uncertain after the same episode. Some checks may answer useful questions; others may intensify attention to perceived defects. Distinguishing short-term experience from repeated behavior across weeks or months is essential to a scientifically accurate model.
Checking and avoidance can coexist
Body checking and body avoidance may alternate. A person might avoid public photographs while examining private selfies repeatedly, avoid a full-length mirror while inspecting one facial feature, or avoid social events while spending extensive time preparing for them. Both behaviors can be organized around the same feared evaluation. Their specific consequences and relationships with distress require assessment rather than presumption.
Meta-analytic research shows that checking and avoidance are each associated with body dissatisfaction and eating-disorder symptoms in studied populations. These relationships are relevant to clinical formulation, but association alone does not establish whether checking preceded dissatisfaction, followed it, or participated in a reciprocal process. Walker, White, and Srinivasan, 2018.
Research findings and strength of evidence
Quantitative associations
A meta-analysis by Walker and colleagues estimated a correlation of approximately 0.59 between body checking and eating-disorder pathology, approximately 0.63 between body checking and body dissatisfaction, and approximately 0.39 between body checking and mood or affect. These are pooled associations, not probabilities of developing an illness and not estimates of the causal benefit of stopping checking. Moderator analyses suggested that some relationships vary with sample characteristics. Walker et al., 2018.
Nikodijevic and colleagues also reported higher checking levels in eating-disorder cases than healthy controls, with a standardized mean difference of 1.26 in their female-only meta-analysis. The review supports the clinical relevance of behavioral body-image variables while highlighting the need for broader sampling and diagnostic specificity. Nikodijevic et al., 2018.
What the 2025 transdiagnostic review adds
The 2025 review integrated experimental, questionnaire, ecological momentary assessment, field, and treatment studies. Because outcomes and designs differed substantially, the authors used a narrative synthesis rather than claiming a single pooled effect of checking on emotion. The review included 43 studies, with more than half using exclusively female samples, and examined material across several disorders. The most consistent pattern concerned emotional distress surrounding checking, whereas the timing and direction of its emotional consequences remained heterogeneous. Hofschröer et al., 2025.
The review is an important correction to the oversimplified claim that every check always creates a moment of reassurance followed by worsening distress. Its findings also encourage study of different functions: monitoring perceived weight change, inspecting a feared facial flaw, and searching for evidence of illness may share attentional patterns but involve different fears and clinical requirements.
Evidence concerning psychotherapy
BDD-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy is supported by randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, and clinical recommendations. Therapy commonly addresses distorted appraisals, avoidance, checking, reassurance seeking, and associated safety behaviors. A recent meta-analysis and systematic review assessed efficacy, acceptability, and retention in BDD psychotherapy studies, including the challenges of treatment delivery and engagement. Byrne et al., 2026.
Because comprehensive treatment contains several components, its overall effectiveness cannot be attributed solely to reducing mirror checking. Evidence for a particular micro-intervention or independent component may be less certain than evidence for a treatment package. This distinction matters when translating clinical findings into everyday self-help advice.
Body dysmorphic disorder and related clinical conditions
Body dysmorphic disorder
BDD involves preoccupation with one or more perceived defects in appearance that appear slight or are unobservable to others, associated repetitive behaviors or mental acts, and clinically significant distress or impairment. Mirror checking, excessive grooming, comparison, and reassurance seeking are possible components. A complete clinical assessment establishes diagnostic criteria, degree of insight, impairment, co-occurring conditions, and whether the concern is better explained by eating-disorder symptoms centered on weight or body fat.
Frequent mirror use alone does not diagnose BDD. A person with BDD may avoid mirrors or conceal their rituals. The central clinical issue is how appearance preoccupation, behavior, and impairment fit together. An assessment also examines depression, self-harm risk, and suicidal thinking because BDD may carry serious clinical risks. NICE specifically recommends assessment of self-harm and suicide risk in diagnosed BDD, especially with depression. NICE, CG31.
BDD belongs within the obsessive-compulsive and related disorders category of major diagnostic systems. Its appearance-centered symptoms nevertheless require BDD-specific evaluation and treatment. The canonical OCD vs BDD differential concerns what the person fears, how compulsive behavior functions, insight, and diagnostic overlap; the presence of rituals alone does not make OCD and BDD interchangeable.
Eating disorders and body dissatisfaction
In eating disorders, checking often centers on weight, body fat, or shape and may participate in the overvaluation of these characteristics in self-evaluation. Other essential symptoms, including patterns of eating, compensatory behavior, physical health consequences, and related psychological findings, determine diagnosis and treatment. Eating-disorder assessment belongs within comprehensive specialist care. A body-checking questionnaire does not establish an eating-disorder diagnosis.
Body dissatisfaction describes a negative evaluation of one's body or specific features. It can exist without a mental disorder and without compulsive checking. People can also experience checking rituals with different degrees of dissatisfaction. Body image disturbance is a broader construct whose specific meaning depends on the research or clinical framework, and it should not automatically be equated with BDD.
Muscle dysmorphia and muscularity-focused checking
Repeated inspection of muscularity, leanness, or symmetry can occur within normal athletic training and personal grooming. When associated with persistent perceived inadequacy, preoccupation, severe distress, and impairment, muscularity concerns may require assessment for muscle dysmorphia and related conditions. The clinical focus is on psychological and behavioral features rather than a person's actual muscle size, body type, or exercise frequency.
Social anxiety, appearance anxiety, and OCD
Appearance anxiety concerns feared appearance evaluation and may occur as a symptom, a research construct, or part of another syndrome. Social anxiety disorder centers on fear of negative evaluation in social situations, which may include worries about appearance. In BDD, a perceived physical defect and its related preoccupation are central. OCD can include checking and reassurance seeking, but its obsessions and feared outcomes may focus on contamination, harm, responsibility, or other themes. A clinician assesses the content and function of these experiences and possible co-occurrence.
Illness anxiety and appropriate medical monitoring
Health-related body checking can focus on symptoms or signs of disease rather than attractiveness or visible defect. The 2025 transdiagnostic review includes illness anxiety disorder because its checking processes share certain cognitive-behavioral hypotheses with appearance-related checking. Clinically, however, assessing a new or changing symptom according to medical guidance is distinct from repetitive health reassurance rituals. Psychological treatment must not discourage appropriate medical evaluation.
Measurement, screening, and clinical assessment
The Body Checking Questionnaire
Reas, Whisenhunt, Netemeyer, and Williamson developed the 23-item Body Checking Questionnaire (BCQ) to assess checking concerning overall appearance, specific body parts, and individualized rituals. Initial validation reported strong test-retest reliability and internal consistency and demonstrated associations with other body-image and eating-disorder measures. The instrument is useful for describing behavioral patterns in relevant settings, but its scores are not stand-alone psychiatric diagnoses. Reas et al., 2002.
Checking, avoidance, and reassurance as distinct dimensions
A September 2026 validation study tested the Body Checking and Avoidance Questionnaire among German female adolescents receiving inpatient care for anorexia nervosa or atypical anorexia nervosa. The original instrument did not show satisfactory model fit in the initial confirmatory analysis. An exploratory adapted 23-item version suggested three dimensions: checking, avoidance, and reassurance seeking. Internal consistency was acceptable to excellent across dimensions, but the factor structure remains preliminary and requires replication. It should not be presumed to apply to all adolescents, cultural settings, or diagnostic groups. Beer et al., 2026.
This result illustrates a central measurement problem: closely related behaviors can have different social and emotional functions. A person may avoid looking at a photograph, engage in covert comparison, and repeatedly ask friends for reassurance, with each component requiring separate description.
Interviews and contextual self-monitoring
A thorough assessment asks what triggers checking, what feared event is being prevented, how long the behavior lasts, whether it is experienced as voluntary, how the person feels before and after it, and what it displaces in daily life. Interviews also explore appearance beliefs, avoidance, social context, prior bullying or stigma, health concerns, and co-occurring symptoms. The appropriate measures depend on the presentation.
Repeated everyday observations can improve temporal precision. Ecological momentary assessment, for example, can record distress and checking closer to when they occur, reducing some recall problems. Experiments may test immediate effects of manipulating checking or attention. Longitudinal designs can examine temporal ordering, and randomized trials can evaluate interventions. These designs complement one another; a cross-sectional correlation cannot resolve causality.
Why screening results are not a diagnosis
A high checking score may indicate distress or a ritualized habit worthy of further evaluation. A clinical diagnosis depends on the relevant disorder's full criteria, impairment, exclusions, comorbidity, and risk. Appearance checking may also be shaped by actual harassment, discrimination, medical changes, or physical difference. Clinical assessment should recognize external circumstances and avoid treating natural variation in appearance, age, weight, disability, or gender identity as psychiatric symptoms.
Adolescence, gender, culture, and social context
Puberty changes appearance rapidly, while peer reactions and cultural norms can shape self-evaluation. Some adolescents engage in extensive checking, but age-related self-consciousness varies widely. Clinical interpretation should consider developmental stage, family responses, bullying, social media, and the difference between flexible concerns and substantial impairment. The 2026 adolescent questionnaire study adds preliminary measurement evidence rather than a universal prevalence estimate. Beer et al., 2026.
Many foundational body-checking studies recruited predominantly or exclusively women, especially from eating-disorder settings. Other populations may prioritize different features, including muscularity, height, skin, hair, facial features, or appearance changes associated with illness or injury. Research in men, transgender and gender-diverse groups, culturally diverse settings, and disabled populations needs validated measures and attention to social context.
Appearance-focused monitoring can be partly responsive to actual social experiences. Weight stigma, racism, ageism, disability discrimination, and other forms of unequal treatment affect how people anticipate others' judgments. Clinical work should address harmful checking cycles while recognizing that social prejudice and mistreatment can be real. A formulation centered only on individual beliefs may overlook important environmental conditions.
Evidence-based interventions and practical implications
Cognitive-behavioral formulation
A personalized cognitive-behavioral formulation maps triggers, feared predictions, selective attention, checking, reassurance, avoidance, and the consequences of these behaviors. Its purpose is to identify what keeps a problem active for the individual. In BDD, recommended cognitive-behavioral treatment can include exposure and response prevention (ERP), cognitive work, reduction of rituals, and approaches to appearance-related attention. Treatment is selected according to clinical severity, comorbidity, risk, and preferences. NICE, CG31.
Exposure and response prevention
ERP helps people approach meaningful situations while refraining from safety rituals that have become part of the problem. For appearance-related distress, a clinician may support participation in an ordinary activity without repeated mirror checks or reassurance requests. Exposures should be collaborative and individualized, with clear understanding of what is being learned. The principle does not authorize neglect of medical symptoms, unsafe social circumstances, or necessary clinical care.
Mirror exposure in therapy differs from compulsive mirror inspection. Guided practice may involve balanced attention and neutral description instead of searching for proof that a perceived flaw is absent. Treatment may also address attention narrowed toward details. Prolonged self-directed mirror gazing performed to achieve certainty can function as another checking ritual; more time in front of a mirror is not inherently a therapeutic intervention.
Work with families and close relationships
When a relative repeatedly provides appearance reassurance as part of a compulsive pattern, a treatment plan may help both people change how they respond. NICE recommends doing so sensitively. The response can continue to validate distress, offer companionship, and support valued activities while reducing repeated appearance verdicts. A collaborative strategy protects the relationship and helps the affected person develop greater autonomy in managing uncertainty. NICE, CG31.
Everyday flexibility and professional care
A practical check usually answers a bounded question and ends when relevant information has been obtained. A distress-driven ritual may demand increasingly precise answers to a question about worth, attractiveness, or rejection that no mirror can settle. Noticing the difference can help identify when appearance monitoring has begun to dominate attention. General strategies emphasizing participation in valued activities and a wider understanding of the body's functions can support well-being, although they are not substitutes for evidence-based treatment of clinical disorders.
People whose appearance preoccupations, checking, or reassurance seeking interfere substantially with education, work, health, relationships, or everyday life can seek assessment from an appropriately qualified mental-health professional. Severe eating-disorder symptoms, BDD, depression, or safety concerns require coordinated care. Suicidal thoughts or immediate risk of harm call for urgent local emergency or crisis support rather than self-directed behavioral experiments.
Limitations and directions for research
Established evidence identifies checking and reassurance seeking as clinically important components of BDD and related conditions, and meta-analyses show substantial associations between checking and body dissatisfaction in studied populations. Evidence also supports comprehensive BDD-focused CBT. The precise emotional sequence within an individual checking episode remains less certain. The 2025 systematic review found inconsistency in the predicted immediate relief mechanism and called for improved separation of short-term and long-term effects. Hofschröer et al., 2025.
Interpersonal reassurance seeking deserves measurement independent of visual checking, because its social consequences and feedback processes differ. Additional research should test the roles of digital cameras, beauty filters, generated images, and appearance-scoring tools using experimental and longitudinal designs. It should also improve representation across age, gender, ethnicity, disability, and cultures while examining the influence of actual discrimination.
A strong scientific explanation distinguishes behavior, function, diagnosis, and causal evidence. People can care about their appearance and check it without pathology. Checking becomes a meaningful clinical target when it forms part of a distressing, rigid, and impairing psychological process. Accurate identification of that process is the foundation for proportionate support and effective care.
Frequently asked questions
Is frequent mirror checking always a sign of BDD?
No. Frequency must be considered alongside appearance preoccupation, repetitive mental or behavioral acts, distress, impairment, and diagnostic exclusions. Some people with BDD primarily avoid mirrors, and many frequent mirror users have no disorder.
Why does reassurance sometimes stop helping?
When reassurance is expected to deliver complete certainty about how everyone sees a person, new doubts can follow an otherwise honest answer. Repetition may then expand. Immediate emotional responses vary; the research does not establish a universal relief-then-worsening pattern for each episode.
Can body checking and avoidance occur together?
Yes. A person can avoid public photographs and repeatedly inspect images in private, or avoid full mirrors and focus intensely on one feature. These are different behaviors that can serve related attempts to manage appearance-related distress.
Is checking a symptom of an eating disorder or BDD?
It can occur within either disorder and in people with neither. The central fears, associated symptoms, medical risks, and diagnostic criteria determine clinical interpretation. Body checking alone is insufficient to diagnose either condition.
Can selfies and AI attractiveness feedback become reassurance seeking?
They can serve a reassurance function when used repeatedly to settle persistent doubt about appearance. Their significance depends on motivation, distress, rigidity, and functional impact. A generated score is not a valid measure of the person's worth or universal attractiveness.
How can appearance-related checking be addressed?
Care starts with understanding the behavior's function and assessing the full clinical picture. Evidence-based CBT, including individualized strategies for changing rituals and avoidance, has an established role in BDD. Support from relatives can be structured to preserve compassion while reducing participation in compulsive reassurance.
When is professional assessment appropriate?
Assessment is appropriate when checking, reassurance seeking, preoccupation, or avoidance becomes persistent, difficult to control, or disruptive to everyday functioning. Severe psychological distress, serious eating-disorder symptoms, or self-harm and suicide risk warrant prompt professional attention.
Related Articles
Cluster Body Image and Appearance Psychology — the broader scientific framework for body-image constructs, clinical conditions, social mechanisms, and intervention evidence.
Social Media and Body Image: Appearance Comparison, Ideals, and Mental Health — the published digital-life evidence on appearance comparison and body-image outcomes.
Social Comparison on Social Media: Mental Health, Body Image, and Self-Evaluation — psychological mechanisms of online comparison and self-evaluation.
OCD vs Body Dysmorphic Disorder: Differences, Appearance Rituals, Insight, and Treatment — the canonical clinical comparison of OCD and BDD.
Appearance Anxiety: Fear of Judgment and Avoidance — examines fear of appearance judgment and social avoidance.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder: Symptoms, Diagnosis, and Treatment — explains clinical BDD symptoms, diagnosis and treatment.
Body Dysmorphic Disorder vs Body Dissatisfaction: What Is the Difference? — distinguishes BDD from ordinary appearance dissatisfaction.
References
Beer, C. S., Zillmer, S., Drießnack, N., Jaite, C., and Legenbauer, T. (2026). Measuring body checking and avoidance in adolescents: Validation of a behavioral questionnaire. BMC Psychology, 14, 1359. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-026-05614-y.
Byrne, et al. (2026). A meta-analysis and systematic review examining efficacy, acceptability and patient retention in psychotherapy studies for the treatment of body dysmorphic disorder. Body Image. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2025.102025.
Hofschröer, V., Vivell, M.-B., Vocks, S., and Hartmann, A. S. (2025). Short-term functions and long-term consequences of body checking as a transdiagnostic phenomenon across eating disorders, body dysmorphic disorder, and illness anxiety disorder: A systematic review. Journal of Eating Disorders, 13, 281. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40337-025-01462-0.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. (2005; current online recommendations). Obsessive-compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder: Treatment (CG31). https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg31/chapter/Recommendations.
Nikodijevic, A., Buck, K., Fuller-Tyszkiewicz, M., de Paoli, T., and Krug, I. (2018). Body checking and body avoidance in eating disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis. European Eating Disorders Review, 26(3), 159–185. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2585.
Patel, T. A., Summers, B. J., and Cougle, J. R. (2024). The scientific status of safety behaviors in body dysmorphic disorder. Journal of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, 43, 100911. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocrd.2024.100911.
Reas, D. L., Whisenhunt, B. L., Netemeyer, R., and Williamson, D. A. (2002). Development of the Body Checking Questionnaire: A self-report measure of body checking behaviors. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 31(3), 324–333. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.10012.
Veale, D., and Riley, S. (2001). Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the ugliest of them all? The psychopathology of mirror gazing in body dysmorphic disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 39(12), 1381–1393. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(00)00102-900102-9).
Walker, D. C., White, E. K., and Srinivasan, V. J. (2018). A meta-analysis of the relationships between body checking, body image avoidance, body image dissatisfaction, mood, and disordered eating. International Journal of Eating Disorders. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22867.