Take our Disordered Eating Test

Find a therapist to improve body image

Be alert and aware of detrimental social trends.

Damaging social trends will have serious consequences.

We need to recognise harmful behaviour when it is taking place.

Open and transparent analysis can lead to constructive outcomes.

Let’s get straight to the point with this question: What can you control? And what can you not control? As noted in Responsibility Theory, you are responsible for, and you’ve got the power – and control – over what you think, do, say, learn, and choose. However, when it comes to the lives and influence of others, you have absolutely no power – and no control – over what others think, do, say, learn, and choose.

The media have been reporting on what is currently taking place online — an extremely dangerous appearance‑modification culture which includes self-inflicted procedures such as striking facial bones with a hammer, encouraging the use of steroids, and engaging in starvation-level dieting. In terms of ethical and moral social responsibilities, the question that must be asked, in the interest of openness and transparency, is how such material could be permitted to be presented (Bogost, 2026; Clegg, 2024; Diaz, 2024; McIlveen, 2024; Selinger-Morris, 2026; Shroff, 2026).

Research across ethics and moral philosophy affirms that openness and transparency are essential conditions for ethical and moral thinking, behaviour, organisational inquiry and for ethical public moral reasoning to take place (Hasan, 2013; Kant, 1784/1996; Kant, 1785/1996; McIlveen, 2024; O’Neill, 2020; Rawlins, 2008).

Unethical, Immoral and Dangerous Patterns of Behaviour

Building on this, and with regard to media reports, it is ethically and morally important to emphasise that when situations arise where content promotes self-harm, such promotion potentially cultivates an unethical and dangerous pattern of behaviour, and associated distorted thinking.

The research clearly shows that self-harm provides no personal, social, psychological, intellectual, emotional, or developmental benefits whatsoever. It is, instead, according to the research, consistently associated with increased anxiety, distorted thinking, plus emotional and psychological distress; which tend to lead to negative outcomes (Klonsky, 2007; Nock, 2009; Victor & Klonsky, 2014).

These behaviours do not improve self-belief, self-esteem, or agency; instead, they are linked to increased psychological vulnerability and decreased confidence, self-regulation and self-management; which in turn also cause anxiety and distress (Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016; Klonsky, 2007; Nock, 2010; Victor & Klonsky, 2014).

Choices, Consequences and the Brain

Neuroscience confirms that because the brain is plastic, every repeated thought, choice, and behaviour reshapes its neural architecture. When negative or harmful patterns are repeated, the brain continues its universal function of creating complex neurological connections, neuronal assemblies, and brain maps in response to the types of thoughts and behaviours presented.

Take our Disordered Eating Test

Find a therapist to improve body image

Crucially, this neuroplasticity does not absolve individuals of responsibility. The brain does not compel unethical or immoral behaviour; rather, it brings into action all of its neurological and consciousness capacities in response to the choices, behaviours and actions that the individual is initiating. Because neuroplasticity operates continuously, individuals remain responsible for the thoughts they cultivate, the actions they take and the consequences that follow (Doidge, 2010, 2015; Hofmann et al., 2012).

Neuroplasticity and Repetition

As neuroscience research has demonstrated for many years, the brain continually responds to the thoughts it repeats and the behaviours it practises. Each moment of comparison, self‑criticism, fear, or impulsive action activates and reinforces the associated neural pathways, progressively consolidating these circuits and increasing their efficiency Graybiel, 2008; Yin & Knowlton, 2006).

What needs to be noted here is that if negative thoughts, choices and behaviours can reshape the brain, then positive and constructive choices can reshape the brain. The moment a person recognises this is the moment they can start rewiring their brain constructively, and, along with this, they are also changing their thinking and behaviour, which involves moving towards developing the essential conscious capacity of self-directed thinking, speaking, behaviour, understanding the power and responsibilities of choices, and moral agency (Berboth & Morawetz, 2021; Ochsner & Gross, 2005).

Self-Directed Thinking, Speaking, Behaviour, Choices and Moral Agency

Moral Agency refers to the internal ability each person has to ethically direct their thinking, speaking, behaviour, and choices with moral intent. It forms the basis of ethical autonomy and is central to self-initiated moral responsibility. Moral agency is important because it is the primary domain in which genuine conscience-driven personal control occurs, allowing individuals to act intentionally and ethically manage their own behaviour (Bandura, 2001; Baumeister & Vohs, 2007; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Malle, 2004).

Therefore, it is important to recognise that this extreme appearance-modification culture does not build or improve agency, and most certainly not ethical or moral agency. Instead, it reduces moral agency by encouraging a false, illusory dependence on superficial, externally focused, vain validation of appearance. This superficial dependence appears in compulsive behaviours such as constant comparison with others and persistent self-surveillance, including repetitive mirror checking (Holland & Tiggemann, 2016).

A Process That Erodes Agency and Autonomy

From the outset, this pattern of harmful extreme appearance modification culture behaviour forms an internalised process that undermines agency and autonomy, causing significant cognitive, emotional, and psychological harm, and damaging self-belief, self-efficacy, self-regulation, self-esteem, and overall well-being, which aligns with self-objectification theory (Dittmar et al., 2006; Fardouly & Vartanian, 2016; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Mabe et al., 2014; Moradi & Huang, 2008).

Self-objectification theory (developed by Barbara Fredrickson and Tomi-Ann Roberts) adds another layer of understanding. When individuals internalise an observer’s perspective on their own bodies, research indicates that they begin to treat themselves as objects to be judged negatively by others rather than as autonomous, successful, self-confident, and conscious individuals with agency. This negative emotional and cognitive change seriously undermines the intrinsic self-valuing insights that support identity, self-belief, self-efficacy, and self-esteem, as well as self-regulation and successful self-management (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997).

The research clearly demonstrates that this damaging obsession with extreme appearance modification and related behaviour offers no real ethical, moral, mental, emotional, psychological, or personal benefit whatsoever. Instead, it exemplifies disturbing and distorted thinking that leads to seriously unhealthy and extremely harmful behavioural patterns, which, in turn, can result in immediate and long-term life-altering consequences (Beck, 1976; Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997; Mabe et al., 2014; Moradi & Huang, 2008).

It is Time for You to Now Use Your Power

It is time for you to now immediately use your power to take control of your life and remove this extreme appearance‑modification culture from your life. This can and will start now, with the following self-reflective and self-empowering question: “What am I responsible for, and what power do I have?”

The answer to this question is: “I am responsible for, and I’ve got the power over what I think, do, say, learn, and choose.” This unambiguously and irrefutably means that you – and only you – are in control of your thoughts, feelings, and all of your choices and actions. It also means you have absolute, authentic neurobiological conscious power over your thoughts, your feelings, your choices, and your actions. It is time to harness and start using this immense power now! (Purje, 2014).

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1–26.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128. https://assets.csom.umn.edu/assets/90559.pdf

Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.

Berboth, S., & Morawetz, C. (2021). Amygdala–prefrontal connectivity during emotion regulation: A meta-analysis of psychophysiological interactions. Neuropsychologia, 153, 107767. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002839322100018X

Bogost, I. (2026). People are thinking about looksmaxxing all wrong. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/03/maxxing-tiktok-internet-clavi…

Clegg, R. (2024). Sculpting jaws, giving scores: Inside the world of looksmaxxing. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx28z4zypkno

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Diaz, A. (2024). What is ‘looksmaxxing?’ New York Post. https://nypost.com/2024/02/15/lifestyle/what-is-looksmaxxing-young-men-…

Dittmar, H., Halliwell, E., & Ive, S. (2006). Does Barbie make girls want to be thin? Developmental Psychology, 42(2), 283–292. https://www.abbanews.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/DoesBarbieMakeGirlsW…

Doidge, N. (2010). The brain that changes itself. Penguin.

Doidge, N. (2015). The brain’s way of healing. Penguin.

Fardouly, J., & Vartanian, L. R. (2016). Social media and body image concerns. Current Opinion in Psychology, 9, 1–5. https://www2.psy.unsw.edu.au/Users/lvartanian/Publications/Fardouly%20&…

Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T. A. (1997). Objectification theory. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206.

Graybiel, A. M. (2008). Habits, rituals, and the evaluative brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 31, 359–387. https://web.math.princeton.edu/~sswang/basal-ganglia/graybiel08_annu_re…

Hasan, H. A. (2013). Transparency, trust and confidence in the public sector. British Journal of Arts and Social Sciences, 13(1), 131–140.

Hofmann, W., Schmeichel, B. J., & Baddeley, A. D. (2012). Executive functions and self-regulation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(3), 174–180. https://scienceofbehaviorchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hofmann…

Holland, G., & Tiggemann, M. (2016). A systematic review of the impact of the use of social networking sites on body image and disordered eating outcomes. Body Image, 17, 100–110. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1740144516300912

Kant, I. (1784/1996). An answer to the question: What is enlightenment? In M. J. Gregor (Ed. & Trans.), Practical philosophy (pp. 11–22). Cambridge University Press.

Kant, I. (1785/1996). Groundwork of the metaphysics of morals (M. J. Gregor, Ed. & Trans.). Cambridge University Press.

Klonsky, E. D. (2007). The functions of deliberate self-injury. Clinical Psychology Review, 27(2), 226–239. https://www.selfinjury.bctr.cornell.edu/perch/resources/functions2007-4…

Mabe, A. G., Forney, K. J., & Keel, P. K. (2014). Facebook use maintains eating disorder risk. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 47(5), 516–523.

Malle, B. F. (2004). How the mind explains behavior: Folk explanations, meaning, and social interaction. https://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/20446/1/13.pdf

McIlveen, E. (2024). Bone smashing and crystal meth. News.com.au. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/bonesmashing-and-…

Moradi, B., & Huang, Y. P. (2008). Objectification theory and psychology of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 377–398. https://r.jordan.im/download/psychology/moradi2008.pdf

Nock, M. K. (2009). Why do people hurt themselves? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18(2), 78–83. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2744421/pdf/nihms-138542.pdf

Nock, M. K. (2010). Self-injury. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 339–363. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Matthew-Nock/publication/41654922_…

Ochsner, K. N., & Gross, J. J. (2005). The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9(5), 242–249.

O’Neill, O. (2020). Questioning trust. In The Routledge Handbook of Trust and Philosophy (pp. 17–27). Routledge. https://olli.sonoma.edu/sites/olli/files/sullins-questioning-trust-sp22…

Purje, R. (2014). Responsibility Theory® (Who’s got the power?)®. Amazon/Kindle.

Rawlins, B. R. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Faculty Publications, 885.

Selinger-Morris, S. (2026). Who are ‘looksmaxxers’? Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/who-are-looksmaxxe…

Shroff, K. (2026). Why so many young men are looksmaxxing. WBUR. https://www.wbur.org/cognoscenti/2026/03/31/young-men-grooming-braden-p…

Victor, S. E., & Klonsky, E. D. (2014). Correlates of suicide attempts among self-injurers. Clinical Psychology Review, 34(4), 282–297. https://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~klonsky/publications/VictorCPR2014.pdf

Yin, H. H., & Knowlton, B. J. (2006). The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(6), 464–476. https://people.duke.edu/~hy43/role%20of%20basal.pdf

There was a problem adding your email address. Please try again.

By submitting your information you agree to the Psychology Today Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy

© Psychology Today