Body Image

Abstract

Body image, which MeSH classifies under perception, is the mental representation a person holds of their own body — its size, shape, and appearance — together with the feelings and attitudes attached to it. Research divides it into a perceptual component, measured by body-size estimation, and an attitudinal component, measured by satisfaction and concern; the two dissociate, and in eating disorders the attitudinal disturbance is the larger and more reliable. Body image is further distinguished from the body schema, the sensorimotor representation guiding action, though the two interact. Converging work on the rubber-hand illusion, the distorted implicit body model underlying position sense, and the extrastriate body area shows that even the perceptual body is a construction, plastic to multisensory input rather than a veridical readout of the physical body.

Keywords: body image, body schema, body dissatisfaction, embodiment, perception

What Body Image Is

Body image is the internal representation a person carries of their own body: how large it is, what shape it takes, how it looks, and how it is felt about. The term entered psychology through Paul Schilder’s 1935 monograph The Image and Appearance of the Human Body, which treated the body percept not as a fixed anatomical readout but as a dynamic, affect-laden construction assembled from sensation, memory, and social meaning (Schilder, 1935). That founding insight — that the represented body and the physical body can come apart — still organises the field.

The modern synthesis splits body image into two components that are measured differently and that can dissociate. The perceptual component is the estimated size and shape of the body, assessed by asking a person to adjust a distorting image or set markers to the felt extent of a body part. The attitudinal component is the set of evaluative and affective judgements about the body — satisfaction, concern, investment — assessed by questionnaire or figure-rating scale (Slade, 1994; Cash, 2004). Table 1 lays out the contrast. The distinction matters clinically: in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa the attitudinal disturbance is consistently larger and more reliable than the perceptual one, so a purely perceptual account of these disorders is incomplete (Cash & Deagle, 1997).

Types of Body Image

MeSH indexes Body Image under both Perception and Self Concept, and files two narrower descriptors beneath it. These two children are valence poles of the attitudinal component — they partition how the body is evaluated, not the perceptual machinery that estimates its size. MeSH is a literature-indexing classification, not a causal theory, so the pair below reflects how the biomedical literature is catalogued rather than an exhaustive psychological taxonomy; a person’s perceptual accuracy can be high or low independently of where they sit on this satisfaction axis (Molbert et al., 2018).

Neither child is yet a separate article on this site; both are covered here under the attitudinal component.

Body Image Versus Body Schema

A persistent confusion sets body image against the body schema, the sensorimotor representation that tracks the body’s posture and guides action without reaching awareness. The standard division assigns conscious, perceptual, and attitudinal knowledge of the body to body image, and the automatic control of movement to the body schema (de Vignemont, 2010). The cleanest evidence for a real dissociation is neuropsychological: patients with deafferentation lose the schema yet retain a body image, while others show the reverse, so the split is grounded in dissociable deficits rather than merely asserted.

The dichotomy is nonetheless too tidy. A co-construction account argues that the two representations continually inform each other — the schema supplies the metric scaffolding on which the image is built, and the image biases how schematic signals are interpreted (Pitron et al., 2018). On this view the interesting question is not which system owns a given task but how they interact, a reframing that matters for disorders in which a distorted image appears to recruit an otherwise intact schema.

The perceptual component is a size estimate; the attitudinal component is a current–ideal gap. They are set independently below to show that one can move while the other stays fixed.

Set the perceived width to 40 cm (BPI 100) while leaving current 7 and ideal 4: perception is now accurate yet the dissatisfaction score is unchanged at 3. A single composite would hide exactly this dissociation.

The Implicit Body Model

Even the perceptual body is not read directly off the senses. Position sense — knowing where one’s hand is without looking — depends on a stored model of body size and shape, and that model is systematically wrong. When participants point to the felt locations of their knuckles and fingertips under an occluding board, the reconstructed map of the hand is grossly distorted: the fingers are underestimated in length and the hand is overestimated in width, by tens of percent (Longo & Haggard, 2010). The distortion is lawful, not noise, and it mirrors the known under-representation of the fingers in primary somatosensory cortex.

This implicit body model is dissociable from the conscious body image a person can draw or describe. Asked to depict the same hand explicitly, people are far more accurate than their implicit pointing reveals, so the two representations are separate products of separate processes (Longo & Haggard, 2012). The lesson generalises: wherever the body is represented, the representation is a construction with its own geometry, and accuracy cannot be assumed.

Reconstructing the hand from felt landmark positions yields a lawful distortion: the fingers are underestimated in length and the hand is overestimated in width. Toggle the implicit model over the true hand outline.

Width is scaled by 40% and finger length by −28%, the direction reported for felt-landmark maps. The explicit hand a person can draw is far more accurate than this implicit map, so the two representations are separate.

Body Ownership and the Rubber-Hand Illusion

That the perceptual body is constructed is shown most vividly when ownership of a body part is captured by a fake. In the rubber-hand illusion, a visible rubber hand and the hidden real hand are stroked in synchrony; within a minute many observers feel the touch on the rubber hand and feel the rubber hand to be theirs, and their felt hand position drifts toward it — a proprioceptive drift that is the standard behavioural index of the illusion (Botvinick & Cohen, 1998). Synchrony is doing the work: the same stroking out of phase abolishes the effect. The illusion decomposes into dissociable experiences — ownership, location, agency — that can be measured together and separated psychometrically (Longo et al., 2008).

Ownership is not unconditional, however. A pre-existing model of the body constrains what can be assimilated: a rubber hand works, an object or an anatomically impossible posture does not, because incoming multisensory signals are gated against a stored reference of what counts as one’s body (Tsakiris, 2010). The illusion therefore reveals both the plasticity of the body percept and its limits, and it has become the standard laboratory tool for manipulating embodiment experimentally.

Synchronous stroking of the hidden real hand and the visible rubber hand drifts the felt position of the real hand toward the fake. Out of phase, the drift collapses.

Felt-position drift = 0.0 px (synchronous). Synchrony, not stroking alone, produces the capture of ownership and the proprioceptive drift toward the fake hand.

Measuring Body Image

Because the two components dissociate, measurement must keep them apart. The perceptual component is captured by size-estimation methods: a distorting photograph or silhouette is widened or narrowed until it matches the felt body, yielding a Body Perception Index, the ratio of perceived to actual size scaled to 100, where values above 100 indicate overestimation (Gardner & Boice, 2004). Such adjustment procedures are vulnerable to anchoring: the starting width of the image biases the endpoint, so a careful protocol randomises the start and averages several trials.

The attitudinal component is captured by questionnaires and figure-rating scales, on which a person marks a current and an ideal figure; the discrepancy is the dissatisfaction score. The two families of measure correlate only weakly, which is exactly the point — a biometric virtual-reality study found women with anorexia nervosa estimated their body size accurately yet wanted a markedly thinner body, so the disturbance was attitudinal, not perceptual (Molbert et al., 2018). Reporting a single “body-image score” collapses a distinction the data insist on.

Worked Example

A size-estimation session illustrates the two-component logic with concrete arithmetic. A participant whose actual torso width is 40 cm completes four distorting-image trials, adjusting the silhouette until it matches her felt width. The recorded settings are 46, 50, 48, and 44 cm, so the mean perceived width is (46 + 50 + 48 + 44) ÷ 4 = 47 cm. The Body Perception Index is perceived ÷ actual × 100 = 47 ÷ 40 × 100 = 117.5, a 17.5% overestimation of size — the perceptual signal.

Her attitudinal score comes from a nine-figure rating scale on which she marks her current body at 7 and her ideal at 4, a current–ideal discrepancy of 7 − 4 = 3 units. Now contrast a second participant whose four settings are 39, 41, 40, and 40 cm: mean 40 cm, Body Perception Index 40 ÷ 40 × 100 = 100.0 — perceptually accurate — yet whose current–ideal discrepancy is also 3. The two women are perceptually different (117.5 versus 100.0) but attitudinally identical (both 3), which is why a single composite would hide the clinically decisive fact that the second person’s disturbance is purely one of attitude. Figure 1 plots both on the two axes.

Current Directions

The most active front is the neural basis of perceptual distortion and its plasticity. A natural substrate is the extrastriate body area, a region of lateral occipitotemporal cortex first identified as responding selectively to images of bodies and body parts rather than faces or objects (Downing et al., 2001). Structural and functional imaging now links the volume of that region, and the strength of its connectivity to posterior parietal cortex, to individual susceptibility to a body-size illusion, offering a candidate substrate for why some people are more prone to distortion than others (Themelis & Moayedi, 2021). In anorexia nervosa a multidimensional model implicates parietal and extrastriate body-processing regions rather than a single lesion, consistent with the behavioural picture of several dissociable disturbances (Gaudio & Quattrocchi, 2012).

A second front turns that understanding into intervention. Because the perceptual body is plastic to multisensory input, immersive full-body illusions can be used therapeutically: a virtual-reality illusion reduced body-size overestimation in anorexia nervosa, evidence that the perceptual component can be nudged directly rather than only through talk about attitudes (Keizer et al., 2016). A third concerns the sociocultural route into the attitudinal component, where prospective work shows that exposure to idealised peer images on social media raises body dissatisfaction in adolescent girls, locating a modifiable environmental cause (Tiggemann & Slater, 2017).

Discussion

The through-line of a century of work is that the represented body is a construction, not a measurement. Schilder said as much in 1935, and every method since has confirmed it from a different angle: the implicit model that governs position sense is lawfully distorted, ownership can be handed to a rubber hand, perceptual estimates and attitudes move independently, and the whole apparatus is plastic to multisensory and social input. The practical payoff is a refusal to treat body image as one thing. A clinician who measures only size estimation will miss the attitudinal disturbance that drives most eating-disorder pathology; a theorist who treats the body schema and body image as sealed systems will miss their interaction; and a researcher who reports a single composite will average away the dissociations that are the field’s central finding. Body image sits at the junction of perception, emotion, and the self, which is why it is indexed under both perception and self concept — and why no single discipline owns it.

Common Misconceptions

“Body image is just how satisfied someone is with their looks.”

Satisfaction is only the attitudinal component. The perceptual component — estimated size and shape — is a separate, separately measured representation that can be distorted even when attitudes are neutral, and the two correlate only weakly (Slade, 1994; Cash & Deagle, 1997).

“A distorted body image means the person literally sees themselves as larger.”

Often not. Biometric studies find many people with anorexia nervosa estimate their size accurately; the disturbance is in what they want and how they feel, not in perception (Molbert et al., 2018).

“Body image and body schema are two words for the same thing.”

They dissociate. The body schema controls action outside awareness; body image is the conscious, perceptual, and attitudinal representation. They interact, but neuropsychological cases separate them (de Vignemont, 2010).

“The brain’s map of the body is accurate.”

The implicit model underlying position sense is systematically wrong — fingers underestimated, hand width overestimated — yet it works well enough for everyday action (Longo & Haggard, 2010).

Glossary

Allocentric representation.

A representation of space or the body in world- or object-centred coordinates, independent of the observer’s current viewpoint.

Attitudinal body image.

The evaluative and affective dimension of body image: satisfaction, concern, and investment in appearance.

Body dissatisfaction.

A negative evaluation of one’s own body, typically the gap between the perceived and the ideal body.

Body image.

The mental representation of one’s own body — its size, shape, and appearance — together with the attitudes attached to it.

Body Perception Index.

A summary metric of perceptual body image equal to perceived size divided by actual size times 100; values above 100 indicate overestimation.

Body schema.

The sensorimotor representation of the body’s posture and dimensions that guides action without reaching awareness.

Depictive judgement.

An explicit judgement of body shape made by drawing or selecting an image, tapping the conscious body image.

Embodiment.

The experience of a body as one’s own, decomposable into ownership, felt location, and agency.

Extrastriate body area.

A region of lateral occipitotemporal cortex selectively responsive to images of bodies and body parts.

Figure rating scale.

A row of body silhouettes graded by size on which a person marks current and ideal figures to index dissatisfaction.

Full-body illusion.

An experimental manipulation, often in virtual reality, that induces ownership of a whole external or virtual body through multisensory synchrony.

Implicit body model.

The stored, systematically distorted representation of body size and shape that underlies position sense.

Metric judgement.

A judgement of the absolute size or length of a body part, used to probe the implicit body model.

Perceptual body image.

The estimated size and shape of the body, measured by size-estimation and distorting-image tasks.

Proprioceptive drift.

The shift of the felt position of a limb toward a seen fake limb during the rubber-hand illusion.

Rubber-hand illusion.

The experience of ownership over a fake hand induced by stroking it in synchrony with the hidden real hand.

Size-estimation task.

A method for measuring perceptual body image in which a person adjusts an image to match the felt size of the body or a part.

Key Researchers

Patrick Haggard

. Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London and a Fellow of the British Academy; senior author on the implicit body-model work on position sense and on the psychometrics of embodiment. ORCID 0000-0001-7798-793X.

Anouk Keizer

. Experimental psychologist at Utrecht University who studies disturbed body-size experience in anorexia nervosa and the plasticity of perceptual body image to multisensory input. ORCID 0000-0002-2379-5518.

Matthew R. Longo

. Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at Birkbeck, University of London, and director of its Body Representation Laboratory; established the distorted implicit body model underlying position sense and its dissociation from the conscious body image. ORCID 0000-0002-2450-4903.

Paul Schilder

(1886–1940). Austrian psychiatrist and psychoanalyst whose 1935 monograph The Image and Appearance of the Human Body founded the body-image concept as a dynamic, affect-laden percept.

Marika Tiggemann

. Matthew Flinders Distinguished Professor of Psychology at Flinders University and a leading researcher on sociocultural and media influences on body dissatisfaction, including the effects of social media in adolescent girls. ORCID 0000-0001-9729-5543.

Manos Tsakiris

. Professor of Psychology at Royal Holloway, University of London; author of a neurocognitive model of body ownership in which a stored body model gates multisensory integration. ORCID 0000-0001-7753-7576.

Frédérique de Vignemont

. Research Director at the CNRS Institut Jean Nicod in Paris and author of Mind the Body (2018); clarified the body-image / body-schema distinction and developed the co-construction account of how they interact. As a philosopher she is not indexed on ORCID; her work is catalogued on PhilPeople.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between body image and body schema?

Body image is the conscious, perceptual, and attitudinal representation of one’s own body; the body schema is the sensorimotor representation that guides action outside awareness. Neuropsychological cases dissociate them, but current accounts hold that the two continually inform each other.

Is body image the same as body dissatisfaction?

No. Body dissatisfaction is only the attitudinal pole — a negative evaluation of the body. Body image also includes a perceptual component, the estimated size and shape of the body, which is measured separately and can be distorted independently of satisfaction.

Do people with anorexia nervosa actually see themselves as larger?

Not necessarily. Several biometric studies find accurate size estimation in anorexia nervosa alongside a strong desire for a thinner body, so the disturbance is often attitudinal rather than perceptual. Perceptual overestimation does occur but is more variable than the attitudinal disturbance.

How is the perceptual component of body image measured?

With size-estimation methods: a distorting image or silhouette is adjusted until it matches the felt size of the body, giving a Body Perception Index equal to perceived size divided by actual size times 100. Values above 100 indicate overestimation.

What does the rubber-hand illusion show about body image?

It shows that ownership of a body part can be captured by a fake through synchronous visuotactile stimulation, and that felt hand position then drifts toward the fake. This demonstrates that the perceptual body is a construction, plastic to multisensory input rather than fixed.

Why is the brain’s implicit model of the body distorted?

Position sense relies on a stored model of hand size and shape in which the fingers are underestimated and the hand is overestimated in width. The pattern mirrors the uneven representation of body parts in somatosensory cortex and is lawful rather than random, yet it supports accurate action.

Can body image be changed?

Yes. The attitudinal component responds to the sociocultural environment, with idealised media images raising dissatisfaction, and the perceptual component is plastic to multisensory manipulation, so that immersive full-body illusions can reduce body-size overestimation in clinical samples.

Why does MeSH file body image under both perception and self concept?

Because body image sits at the junction of two domains: it is a perceptual representation of the physical body and part of the self-concept. MeSH is a literature-indexing classification, so dual placement reflects how the biomedical literature is catalogued rather than a claim that body image is reducible to either domain.

References

Botvinick, M., & Cohen, J. (1998). Rubber hands ‘feel’ touch that eyes see. Nature, 391(6669), 756. https://doi.org/10.1038/35784

Cash, T. F. (2004). Body image: Past, present, and future. Body Image, 1(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1740-1445(03)00011-1

Cash, T. F., & Deagle, E. T. (1997). The nature and extent of body-image disturbances in anorexia nervosa and bulimia nervosa: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 22(2), 107–126. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-108X(199709)22:2<107::AID-EAT1>3.0.CO;2-J

de Vignemont, F. (2010). Body schema and body image—Pros and cons. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 669–680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.022

Downing, P. E., Jiang, Y., Shuman, M., & Kanwisher, N. (2001). A cortical area selective for visual processing of the human body. Science, 293(5539), 2470–2473. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1063414

Gardner, R. M., & Boice, R. (2004). A computer program for measuring body size distortion and body dissatisfaction. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195553

Gaudio, S., & Quattrocchi, C. C. (2012). Neural basis of a multidimensional model of body image distortion in anorexia nervosa. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 36(8), 1839–1847. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.05.003

Keizer, A., van Elburg, A., Helms, R., & Dijkerman, H. C. (2016). A virtual reality full body illusion improves body image disturbance in anorexia nervosa. PLoS ONE, 11(10), e0163921. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0163921

Longo, M. R., Schuur, F., Kammers, M. P. M., Tsakiris, M., & Haggard, P. (2008). What is embodiment? A psychometric approach. Cognition, 107(3), 978–998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2007.12.004

Longo, M. R., & Haggard, P. (2010). An implicit body representation underlying human position sense. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(26), 11727–11732. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1003483107

Longo, M. R., & Haggard, P. (2012). Implicit body representations and the conscious body image. Acta Psychologica, 141(2), 164–168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2012.07.015

Mölbert, S. C., Thaler, A., Mohler, B. J., Streuber, S., Romero, J., Black, M. J., Zipfel, S., Karnath, H.-O., & Giel, K. E. (2018). Assessing body image in anorexia nervosa using biometric self-avatars in virtual reality. Psychological Medicine, 48(4), 642–653. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291717002008

Pitron, V., Alsmith, A., & de Vignemont, F. (2018). How do the body schema and the body image interact? Consciousness and Cognition, 65, 352–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2018.08.007

Schilder, P. (1935). The Image and Appearance of the Human Body: Studies in the Constructive Energies of the Psyche. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner. 📖

Slade, P. D. (1994). What is body image? Behaviour Research and Therapy, 32(5), 497–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7967(94)90136-8

Themelis, K., & Moayedi, M. (2021). The structural and functional connectivity neural underpinnings of body image. Human Brain Mapping, 42(11), 3608–3619. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.25457

Tiggemann, M., & Slater, A. (2017). Facebook and body image concern in adolescent girls: A prospective study. International Journal of Eating Disorders, 50(1), 80–83. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.22640

Tsakiris, M. (2010). My body in the brain: A neurocognitive model of body-ownership. Neuropsychologia, 48(3), 703–712. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2009.09.034