Skin Picking, Hair Pulling, and BFRB Therapy

BFRBs are not bad habits, character problems, or proof that you lack discipline. Skin picking, hair pulling, nail biting, cheek biting, and related behaviors are reinforced loops. They involve urges, sensations, emotions, attention, environment, and repetition.

Most people who reach this page have already tried willpower. They have made rules, hidden tools, avoided mirrors, worn hats, covered skin, promised themselves they were done, and then found themselves doing it again. That does not mean you are not trying. It usually means the treatment plan has not clearly mapped the loop…

Request a consultation

What BFRBs Actually Are: Why They Are Not OCD, Anxiety Habits, or Self-Harm

The foundational guide to Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviors — what they actually are, why the scientific consensus now treats them as distinct from OCD, and why every other framing you have probably encountered is incomplete.

A note on what this article does

This is the foundational piece in our Body-Focused Repetitive Behavior content cluster. If you have landed here, you may be living with a behavior, such as hair pulling, skin picking, nail biting, cheek biting, nose picking, lip biting, or another repetitive body-focused behavior that you cannot stop, that produces real consequences, that you have tried to manage through willpower without success, and that almost no one in your life understands accurately.

You have probably been told some version of one of these things: it is a bad habit, you just need to stop, it is anxiety, it is a form of self-harm, it is OCD, or it is a coping mechanism you can replace with a healthier one. None of these framings is fully accurate, and the inaccuracy matters because it has shaped how you have been treated, how you have understood yourself, and what you have tried to do about it.

This pillar defines BFRBs based on current scientific consensus. It distinguishes them from the conditions they are most often confused with. It names the treatment frameworks that actually work. It does not promise easy answers because there are none. It does promise accurate ones.

If you are reading this as a clinician, this pillar is the foundation for the series of subtype-specific pillars that follow. The framework established here is what the subtype pillars rest on.

What BFRBs Are: The Current Scientific Consensus

Body-Focused Repetitive Behaviors are a category of disorders characterized by recurrent, body-focused repetitive behaviors performed in ways that cause physical damage, distress, or impairment. The category includes Trichotillomania (hair-pulling disorder), Excoriation Disorder (skin-picking disorder), and several other related conditions that share clinical features.

In DSM-5-TR, two BFRBs are formally diagnosed: Trichotillomania and Excoriation Disorder. Both are classified under the broader category of Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders, which is administratively useful but clinically misleading. The administrative grouping in DSM-5-TR places these conditions alongside OCD, Body Dysmorphic Disorder, and Hoarding Disorder, reflecting historical clinical practice and some shared features. The grouping does not reflect a shared underlying mechanism. Current research has progressively established that BFRBs are phenomenologically and neurobiologically distinct from OCD Grant, J. E., & Chamberlain, S. R., 2020). Trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder: Different kinds of OCD. Focus, 19(4), 426-431.

The diagnostic criteria for Trichotillomania include recurrent pulling out of one’s hair, resulting in hair loss; repeated attempts to decrease or stop the pulling; and clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other areas of functioning. The pulling cannot be better explained by another mental disorder (such as the body-image-driven pulling that can occur in Body Dysmorphic Disorder) or attributable to another medical condition (such as a dermatological condition).

The diagnostic criteria for Excoriation Disorder include recurrent skin picking resulting in skin lesions, repeated attempts to decrease or stop the picking, clinically significant distress or impairment, and the same exclusion criteria regarding alternative diagnoses and medical causation (American Psychiatric Association). (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787.

Other BFRBs not formally codified in DSM-5-TR but clinically recognized in the BFRB specialty literature include onychophagia (nail biting), morsicatio buccarum (cheek biting), lip biting, rhinotillexomania (nose picking), trichophagia (hair eating, sometimes secondary to trichotillomania), and trichotemnomania (hair cutting compulsion). These conditions present similarly to the formally diagnosed BFRBs and respond to similar treatment approaches, but they do not have separate DSM codes. The TLC Foundation for BFRBs (the primary specialty organization) and major BFRB researchers treat them as part of the broader BFRB spectrum.

The point of laying this out carefully is that BFRBs are a real clinical category, formally recognized for some of the presentations and clinically recognized for others, with documented prevalence, characteristic neurobiology, and specific treatment approaches. They are not bad habits. They are not character flaws. They are not failures of willpower. They are clinical conditions with their own phenomenology, neurobiology, and evidence-based treatments.

Why BFRBs Are Not OCD (Despite Being Grouped With OCD in DSM-5-TR)

This is the most important section in this pillar, because the conflation of BFRBs with OCD is the single most consequential clinical error in this space.

The DSM-5-TR groups BFRBs under “Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders” along with OCD itself, Body Dysmorphic Disorder, and Hoarding Disorder. The grouping has historical roots in earlier diagnostic frameworks that treated these conditions as part of an “OCD spectrum.” Some clinicians still operate from this framework. The framework is not supported by current research.

Phenomenologically, BFRBs differ from OCD in clinically meaningful ways:

On the cognitive-behavioral structure. OCD is characterized by intrusive cognitions (obsessions) that produce dread, followed by compulsive behaviors performed to relieve the dread. The mechanism is anxiety-driven and threat-detection-based. BFRBs are typically not driven by intrusive cognitions or by dread. They are driven by sensory, affective, or automatic processes that often have a neutral or even pleasant subjective quality in the moment of performance, with distress arising primarily from the consequences (visible damage, attempts to stop, social impact) rather than from the behavior itself. Snorrason, I., Belleau, E. L., & Woods, D. W. (2012). How related are hair-pulling disorder (trichotillomania) and skin-picking disorder? A review of evidence for comorbidity, similarities, and shared etiology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(7), 618-629.

On the affective experience of the behavior. This distinction is clinically important and frequently missed. OCD compulsions are performed to discharge dread and produce relief in proportion to the dread that preceded them. BFRBs are often experienced as inherently rewarding, regulating, or satisfying — particularly in their “focused” form (see below for the focused-versus-automatic distinction). Many people with BFRBs report that the behavior feels good while it is happening, even when they are aware that it is producing damage they will later regret. This is structurally different from OCD compulsions, which typically do not feel good even in the moment — they feel necessary. Duke, D. C., Keeley, M. L., Geffken, G. R., & Storch, E. A. (2010). Trichotillomania: A current review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 181-193.

On neurobiology. Neuroimaging research has consistently found that BFRBs and OCD show distinct neural patterns. OCD shows characteristic involvement of cortico-striato-thalamo-cortical circuits, with particular emphasis on the anterior cingulate cortex and orbitofrontal regions, which are associated with threat detection and error monitoring. BFRBs show distinct patterns of involvement, with greater emphasis on motor circuits and reward-processing pathways. The differences are not absolute; there is some overlap, but the patterns are sufficiently distinct that current research treats them as different neurobiological entities Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., & Chamberlain, S. R., 2009). Neuropsychological aspects of pathological hair-pulling. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(4), 463-470.

On treatment response. This is the discriminator that matters most clinically. OCD responds robustly to Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP), which targets the obsession-compulsion cycle by exposing the client to feared content and preventing the compulsive response. BFRBs respond poorly to ERP. They respond well to Habit Reversal Training (HRT) and to the Comprehensive Behavioral Model (ComB), which target the antecedents, sensory drivers, and motor components of the behavior rather than the cognitive content. Applying ERP to BFRBs typically produces minimal benefit; applying HRT or ComB to OCD typically produces minimal benefit. The treatments are not interchangeable, providing direct evidence that the conditions are mechanistically distinct. Bloch, M. H., Landeros-Weisenberger, A., Dombrowski, P., Kelmendi, B., Wegner, R., Nudel, J., Pittenger, C., Leckman, J. F., & Coric, V. (2007). Systematic review: Pharmacological and behavioral treatment for trichotillomania. Biological Psychiatry, 62(8), 839-846.

On medication response. OCD typically responds to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) at higher doses than used for depression, with response rates around 50-60% in clinical trials. BFRBs respond inconsistently to SSRIs. Some studies have shown modest benefit; others have shown no significant difference from placebo. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has emerged as a more promising pharmacological agent for BFRBs, with several studies showing better outcomes than placebo for trichotillomania and excoriation disorder, though the evidence base is smaller than for SSRIs in OCD Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., & Kim, S. W., 2009). N-acetylcysteine, a glutamate modulator, in the treatment of trichotillomania: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(7), 756-763. The different pharmacological response profiles further support the distinction between BFRBs and OCD.

On comorbidity patterns. BFRBs and OCD can coexist — some clients have both — but the comorbidity rates are not high enough to support a shared underlying mechanism. Approximately 15-25% of people with trichotillomania also meet criteria for OCD, which is higher than the population base rate but not enough to suggest the conditions are variants of the same disorder. The comorbidity pattern looks more like that of two related but distinct conditions than like that of two manifestations of the same underlying process. Houghton, D. C., Maas, J., Twohig, M. P., Saunders, S. M., Compton, S. N., Neal-Barnett, A. M., Franklin, M. E., & Woods, D. W. (2016). Comorbidity and quality of life in adults with hair-pulling disorder. Psychiatry Research, 239, 12-19.

The clinical implication of all of this is direct: if you have a BFRB and you have been treated for OCD without significant improvement, the treatment may have been wrong for what you actually have. ERP targeting behavior, cognitive restructuring of urges, and exposure-based work do not address the actual mechanism underlying BFRBs. The right treatment exists. The framework for it is described in a separate pillar (linked below).

Why BFRBs Are Not Self-Harm (Despite Producing Physical Damage)

The second most common misframing of BFRBs is as a form of self-harm or non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI). This conflation produces real clinical harm and deserves direct correction.

Non-suicidal self-injury, as defined in DSM-5-TR and in the clinical literature, involves deliberate, self-inflicted damage to body tissue that is not socially sanctioned and is performed with the intent to relieve emotional distress, communicate distress, or self-punish. The behavior is purposive in the sense that the person is choosing to harm themselves as a means of accomplishing a psychological function Klonsky, E. D., Victor, S. E., & Saffer, B. Y., 2014). Nonsuicidal self-injury: What we know, and what we need to know. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 59(11), 565-568.

BFRBs are structurally different in several important ways:

On intent. People with BFRBs do not typically intend to harm themselves. They do not pick, pull, or bite to cause damage. The damage is a byproduct of the behavior, not its purpose. Many people with BFRBs are distressed by the damage and try repeatedly to avoid it. In NSSI, the damage is the point. In BFRBs, the damage is the cost.

On affective function. NSSI is typically performed to relieve acute emotional distress, particularly intense negative affect like rage, panic, or dissociation. The function is regulatory in a crisis sense — the behavior brings the person back from an intolerable affective state. BFRBs serve different functions. They are often performed in low-arousal states, during boredom, or while focused on other tasks. They can be regulatory, but the regulation is more about modulating ongoing internal states than about pulling out of crisis. Some BFRBs are essentially dissociative or automatically performed with minimal awareness Diefenbach, G. J., Tolin, D. F., Meunier, S., & Worhunsky, P., 2008). Emotion regulation and trichotillomania: A comparison of clinical and nonclinical hair pulling. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39(1), 32-41.

On the relationship to suicide. NSSI carries some statistical relationship to suicide risk, though the relationship is complex and should not be reduced to a single behavior. BFRBs do not carry the same relationship to suicide risk as NSSI. That said, any suicidal thoughts, self-harm urges, or safety concerns should be assessed directly and taken seriously. Treating BFRBs as if they are automatically suicidal behavior is clinically inaccurate; ignoring actual safety concerns would be equally wrong.

On treatment response. NSSI responds to interventions targeting emotion regulation, distress tolerance, and the specific functions that self-injury serves (often Dialectical Behavior Therapy or similar emotion-focused approaches). BFRBs respond to HRT and ComB. The treatments target different mechanisms because the underlying processes are different.

The clinical implication: if you have a BFRB and you have been treated as if the behavior is automatically intentional self-injury, the framing may have misdescribed your experience. For many people with BFRBs, the behavior is not an attempt to hurt themselves. The damage is collateral to a behavior with multiple drivers. The treatment that works for self-injury will not address what is actually happening, and the framing of self-harm can produce shame that compounds the BFRB without addressing it.

Why BFRBs Are Not Anxiety Habits (Despite Sometimes Coexisting With Anxiety)

The third common misframing of BFRBs is as anxiety-driven habits or behaviors performed in response to stress or anxiety that can be replaced with healthier coping mechanisms. This framing is the most widespread in non-specialist clinical practice and the most damaging in its specifics.

The truth is more complicated. BFRBs can coexist with anxiety, can be exacerbated by stress, and can have anxiety-reduction components in their functional profile. But they are not simply anxiety habits, and treating them as such produces poor outcomes.

On the relationship to anxiety. Some BFRBs occur in response to stress. Some occur in response to other affective states (boredom, frustration, sadness). Some occur in low-arousal states with no clear affective trigger. Some occur during focused attention on tasks (reading, watching TV, working). The relationship to anxiety is variable — present in some clients, absent in others, secondary in still others. The framing of “BFRBs are anxiety habits” fails to capture this variability and produces treatment recommendations (anxiety reduction techniques, relaxation training) that often do not address the actual drivers of the behavior. Mansueto, C. S., Townsley Stemberger, R. M., Thomas, A. M., & Golomb, R. G. (1997). Trichotillomania: A comprehensive behavioral model. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(5), 567-577.

On the focused-automatic distinction. Research distinguishes between focused BFRBs (performed with full awareness, often in response to specific cognitive or affective triggers, frequently with ritualistic features) and automatic BFRBs (performed with minimal awareness, often during other activities, frequently in pre-sleep or sedentary contexts). Many clients experience both subtypes. The two subtypes have different driver profiles and different treatment implications. Treating BFRBs as anxiety habits collapses this distinction and produces interventions that may help focused pulling/picking modestly while failing to address automatic pulling/picking at all. Flessner, C. A., Conelea, C. A., Woods, D. W., Franklin, M. E., Keuthen, N. J., & Cashin, S. E. (2008). Styles of pulling in trichotillomania: Exploring differences in symptom severity, phenomenology, and functional impact. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46(3), 345-357..

On the “replacement behavior” framing. Generic anxiety-management approaches often suggest replacing the BFRB with a different coping behavior — squeezing a stress ball, using a fidget toy, or applying deep breathing. These suggestions are not wrong as components of treatment, but they are radically incomplete. Habit Reversal Training (which does include competing response training) is much more structured than “find a replacement behavior” advice, and ComB addresses the sensory, cognitive, affective, motor, and place/setting factors that drive the behavior, not just the surface action. The “replacement behavior” framing produces the experience many clients describe of having tried “everything” without success — what they have tried is the surface intervention without the underlying framework that makes it work.

The clinical implication: if you have a BFRB and you have been told to manage your anxiety, find healthier coping mechanisms, or replace the behavior with something else, the advice has been incomplete. Anxiety management may be useful for clients whose BFRB has a significant anxiety-driven component. It is not a complete treatment. The complete treatment is structured behavioral therapy targeting the specific drivers of your specific BFRB.

The Focused-Automatic Distinction (Why It Matters Clinically)

One of the most clinically important distinctions in BFRB phenomenology, mentioned briefly above, deserves its own treatment here because the focused-automatic distinction shapes everything about how BFRBs are assessed and treated.

Focused BFRBs are performed with full awareness. The person knows they are pulling their hair, picking their skin, or biting their nails. The behavior often follows specific antecedents — a tactile sensation, an intrusive thought, an affective state, a particular setting. The pulling or picking often has ritualistic features — specific hairs are targeted (the coarse ones, the curly ones, the gray ones), specific skin lesions are targeted (the perceived imperfections, the scabs, the bumps), and the behavior follows a specific sequence. The aftermath often involves examining what was pulled or picked, sometimes accompanied by sensory rituals (rolling the hair between the fingers, examining the root, touching the lips with the hair, biting the hair, or eating the hair). Focused pulling and picking is the subtype most likely to be misunderstood as compulsive or OCD-like, but the phenomenology is different from OCD — the behavior is sought out rather than performed to discharge dread.

Automatic BFRBs are performed with minimal awareness. The person is often surprised to discover they have been pulling, picking, or biting — they notice afterward, when they see the hair on the floor, the blood on their fingers, or the damage in the mirror. Automatic behaviors typically occur during other activities: reading, watching TV, driving, working on the computer, talking on the phone, and falling asleep. The person is engaged in the foreground activity while the BFRB runs in the background. This is the subtype most often missed in clinical assessment because clients themselves may not be fully aware of the frequency or duration of the behavior.

Many clients exhibit both subtypes, often in different contexts. They might pull focused in front of a mirror in the bathroom and pull automatically while reading on the couch. The two subtypes can have different drivers, different consequences, and different treatment requirements within the same client.

The clinical implication of the focused-automatic distinction is that effective BFRB treatment must address both subtypes when both are present. Treatment that targets only focused behavior leaves the automatic behavior untreated. Treatment that targets only automatic behavior leaves the focused behavior untreated. The Comprehensive Behavioral Model (ComB) is specifically designed to address the full range of subtypes and their varied drivers. Generic HRT, particularly when delivered without subtype assessment, often fails for clients with significant automatic components.

What Effective BFRB Treatment Actually Involves (And What It Does Not)

This section provides a brief overview of effective BFRB treatment to help readers understand what good care looks like. A separate pillar in this series develops the treatment framework in depth.

The gold-standard treatment framework for BFRBs is the Comprehensive Behavioral Model (ComB), developed by Charles Mansueto and colleagues at the Behavior Therapy Center of Greater Washington. ComB is a multi-modal framework that assesses and intervenes across five domains:

  • Sensory — what sensations drive or accompany the behavior (textural, visual, auditory, oral)
  • Cognitive — what thoughts, beliefs, or cognitive states precede and accompany the behavior
  • Affective — what emotional states are associated with the behavior
  • Motor — what physical movements and motor patterns are involved
  • Place/setting — what environmental and contextual factors are associated with the behavior

For each domain that is identified as relevant to a particular client’s BFRB, ComB develops specific interventions. This is structurally different from generic HRT, which focuses primarily on competing response training (a single intervention type). ComB is more flexible, more individualized, and shows better outcomes for complex presentations Falkenstein, M. J., Mouton-Odum, S., Mansueto, C. S., Goldfinger Golomb, R., & Haaga, D. A. F., 2014). Comprehensive behavioral treatment of trichotillomania: A treatment development study. Behavior Modification, 38(1), 142-167.

Habit Reversal Training (HRT), developed by Azrin and Nunn in 1973, is the foundational behavioral treatment for tics and repetitive behaviors. HRT involves awareness training, competing response training, and social support. It remains evidence-based for BFRBs and is often a component of comprehensive treatment, but it is typically insufficient on its own for complex BFRB presentations. Azrin, N. H., & Nunn, R. G. (1973). Habit-reversal: A method of eliminating nervous habits and tics. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 11(4), 619-628..

Acceptance-Enhanced Behavior Therapy (AEBT) integrates Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) with behavioral interventions for BFRBs. It addresses the urge-action relationship through psychological flexibility work alongside the behavioral components. Evidence supports AEBT as effective, particularly for clients whose BFRB has significant experiential avoidance components Woods, D. W., Wetterneck, C. T., & Flessner, C. A., 2006). A controlled evaluation of acceptance and commitment therapy plus habit reversal for trichotillomania. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(5), 639-656..

Medication can be a useful adjunct in some cases. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has the strongest research support among pharmacological agents for BFRBs. SSRIs are sometimes prescribed but show inconsistent effects. Naltrexone, olanzapine, and other agents have been studied with mixed results. Medication decisions should be made with a psychiatric prescriber familiar with BFRB-specific research, ideally in coordination with behavioral treatment.

Effective BFRB treatment is not generic anxiety management, generic mindfulness training, willpower-based stopping, replacement behavior advice without the full framework, or punishment-based approaches. None of these addresses the actual drivers of BFRBs, and each has been documented to produce poor outcomes when applied as a standalone treatment.

A separate pillar in this series develops the ComB framework in clinical depth. Readers who want to understand the treatment in operational detail should refer to that pillar.

What Causes BFRBs (Current Understanding)

The honest answer is that the causes of BFRBs are not fully understood, but research has identified several contributing factors.

Genetic factors. Twin studies and family studies indicate a substantial genetic contribution to BFRB risk. Heritability estimates for trichotillomania range from approximately 32% to 76%, depending on study methodology, with similar findings for skin picking disorder Novak, C. E., Keuthen, N. J., Stewart, S. E., & Pauls, D. L., 2009). A twin concordance study of trichotillomania. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B, 150B(7), 944-949. Some specific genetic variants have been associated with BFRB risk, particularly those in genes involved in dopamine and glutamate signaling, though no single gene has been identified as causal.

Neurobiological factors. As described earlier, BFRBs are associated with distinct patterns of brain function compared to OCD. Current research implicates motor circuits, reward processing pathways, and possibly glutamatergic neurotransmission. The neurobiology is consistent with a disorder of motor habit formation and reward processing rather than a disorder of threat detection (as in OCD). Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., Hampshire, A., Schreiber, L. R., & Chamberlain, S. R. (2012). White matter abnormalities in skin picking disorder: A diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuropsychopharmacology, 38(5), 763-769.

Developmental factors. BFRBs typically emerge in late childhood or early adolescence, with onset peaking around ages 10-13 for trichotillomania and slightly later for skin picking. The developmental timing suggests interaction with pubertal changes, possibly involving hormonal influences on the same neural circuits implicated in adult presentations. Childhood-onset BFRBs often persist into adulthood, though some cases (particularly very early childhood onset under age 6) may remit (Franklin, M. E., Flessner, C. A., Woods, D. W., Keuthen, N. J., Piacentini, J. C., Moore, P., Stein, D. J., Cohen, S. B., & Wilson, M. A. (2008). The Child and Adolescent Trichotillomania Impact Project: Descriptive psychopathology, comorbidity, functional impairment, and treatment utilization. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 29(6), 493-500.

Environmental and contextual factors. Stress, life transitions, sleep deprivation, and major hormonal changes (puberty, pregnancy, perimenopause) can exacerbate BFRBs. These factors are typically not causal in the sense of producing a disorder where none existed — they typically interact with underlying vulnerability — but they can significantly affect severity and presentation.

The interaction of factors. Current understanding is that BFRBs result from interactions between genetic vulnerability, neurobiological substrate, developmental timing, and environmental context. No single factor causes the disorder. This is consistent with how most psychiatric conditions develop and is not unique to BFRBs.

The clinical implication: BFRBs are not caused by something you did wrong. They are not caused by your parents. They are not caused by trauma (though trauma can exacerbate them in some cases). They are not caused by character flaws. They emerge from a complex interaction of factors, most of which are not under anyone’s control, and they are treatable through approaches that target the mechanisms identified by current research.

What This Means For You

If you have a BFRB, the take-home message from this pillar is:

You have a real clinical condition, not a bad habit. The framing matters because it shapes everything downstream: your relationship to the behavior, your access to appropriate treatment, and your sense of yourself.

The framings you have probably encountered are mostly incomplete. OCD, self-harm, anxiety habit — none of these captures what BFRBs actually are. The conflation has led to years of treatment that may not have addressed the underlying mechanism of your condition.

Effective treatment exists, but it requires the right framework. ComB, HRT, AEBT — the specialty behavioral treatments work. They are different from OCD treatments. They are different from self-harm treatments. They are different from generic anxiety management. Finding a clinician trained in BFRB-specific behavioral treatment matters.

You did not cause this. The disorder emerges from factors largely outside your control. Years of self-blame, family blame, partner blame, or shame about willpower do not reflect the condition’s actual etiology.

You can recover, in the realistic sense. Recovery from BFRBs is rarely complete cessation. Most successful treatment produces a significant reduction in frequency and severity, restoration of valued life activities, and dismantling of the shame architecture around the behavior. Some clients achieve complete cessation. Many achieve meaningful improvement that transforms their relationship to the behavior and to themselves. Both outcomes are valid, and both reflect successful treatment.

This pillar is the foundation. The remaining pillars in this series develop the specific subtypes (trichotillomania, excoriation, oral BFRBs, and less-discussed presentations), the treatment framework (the ComB pillar), the differential diagnostics (the comorbidity and differential pillar), the developmental presentations (the parent-facing pillar for childhood and adolescent BFRBs), and the shame architecture (the dedicated pillar on the unique suffering BFRBs produce).

If you are reading this because you have a BFRB, or someone you love has one, the door is open. The condition is real. The treatment exists. The framework for understanding what is actually happening is now available to you.

Working Together

Murad Counseling PLLC provides BFRB-specialized therapy for adults via telehealth in Texas, Washington, New Hampshire, and Florida. I specialize in OCD, ERP, EMDR, BFRBs, trauma, and couples therapy. My BFRB work is grounded in the Comprehensive Behavioral Model (ComB) and integrates Habit Reversal Training (HRT), Acceptance-Enhanced Behavior Therapy (AEBT) elements where appropriate, and careful differential assessment for clients with comorbid OCD, anxiety, ADHD, autism, or trauma.

If you have a BFRB and you have been treated for OCD, anxiety, or self-harm without significant improvement, or if you are looking for a clinician who works from the ComB framework rather than from generic habit-breaking approaches, I would be glad to talk.

Request a consultation

Frequently Asked Questions

Are BFRBs really not OCD? Current scientific consensus, based on phenomenology, neurobiology, treatment response, and comorbidity research, treats BFRBs as distinct from OCD. They are grouped together in DSM-5-TR under “Obsessive-Compulsive and Related Disorders” for administrative reasons reflecting historical practice, but the grouping does not reflect a shared underlying mechanism. The distinction matters because the treatments are different.

Why does my BFRB feel good in the moment if it is a disorder? This is one of the most clinically important features of BFRBs and one of the most underdiscussed. The behavior often produces sensory satisfaction, a regulatory effect, or a focused-attention reward in the moment of performance, even though it causes damage and distress afterward. This is structurally different from OCD compulsions (which do not feel good) and from self-harm (where damage is the point). The in-moment satisfaction is real and is part of what makes BFRBs so difficult to stop through willpower alone.

Do BFRBs go away on their own? Sometimes, in young children (particularly under age 6), early BFRBs may remit naturally. After childhood, BFRBs typically persist without treatment, often becoming chronic conditions. Some clients experience periods of remission followed by recurrence in response to stress, hormonal changes, or life transitions. Treatment significantly improves outcomes compared to natural history.

Can BFRBs be cured? “Cure” is a complicated word for BFRBs because complete and permanent cessation is uncommon. The most successful treatment produces a substantial reduction in frequency and severity, the restoration of valued life activities, and the dismantling of the shame architecture. Some clients achieve full cessation; many achieve meaningful improvement. Both outcomes are clinically successful.

What is the difference between HRT and ComB? HRT (Habit Reversal Training) is a single-component intervention developed by Azrin and Nunn in 1973, focused primarily on awareness training and competing response training. ComB (the Comprehensive Behavioral Model) is a multi-domain framework developed by Mansueto and colleagues that addresses sensory, cognitive, affective, motor, and place/setting factors. ComB typically incorporates HRT components but extends them within a broader assessment and intervention framework. For complex BFRB presentations, ComB generally produces better outcomes than HRT alone.

Is medication effective for BFRBs? Medication evidence for BFRBs is more limited than for OCD. N-acetylcysteine (NAC) has the strongest research support among pharmacological agents, with several studies showing better outcomes than placebo for trichotillomania and excoriation disorder. SSRIs show inconsistent results. Medication decisions should be made with a psychiatric prescriber familiar with BFRB-specific research, and medication typically works best as an adjunct to behavioral treatment rather than as a standalone intervention.

Are BFRBs caused by trauma? Trauma can exacerbate BFRBs and can co-occur with them, but BFRBs are not caused by trauma in the way some clinical frameworks suggest. The etiology involves genetic, neurobiological, developmental, and environmental factors interacting in complex ways. Some clients with BFRBs have significant trauma histories that warrant their own clinical attention; others have no trauma history. The framing of “BFRBs are caused by trauma” misdescribes the etiology for many clients and can produce shame about a perceived trauma history that may not exist.

Will I have to stop completely to recover? No. Recovery in BFRBs is typically measured by a significant reduction in frequency and severity, the restoration of valued activities, and improvements in shame and self-perception. Complete cessation is sometimes achieved but is not the universal goal or measure of successful treatment. Many clients live with much-reduced BFRB activity in ways that no longer significantly impair their lives.

Are BFRBs hereditary? BFRBs have substantial genetic contribution, with heritability estimates for trichotillomania ranging from approximately 32% to 76% in twin and family studies. If you have a BFRB, family members may also have BFRBs or related conditions. This does not mean BFRBs are “just genetic”; environmental and developmental factors interact with genetic vulnerability, but the hereditary component is real.

Can BFRBs start in adulthood? Most BFRBs emerge in childhood or adolescence, but adult-onset cases do occur. Adult-onset trichotillomania or excoriation can be associated with major life stressors, hormonal changes (pregnancy, perimenopause), or medical events. Adult-onset cases respond to the same treatment frameworks as childhood-onset cases, though developmental history considerations differ.

Is telehealth effective for BFRB treatment? Yes. Telehealth ComB and HRT have demonstrated effectiveness comparable to in-person delivery for adult BFRB treatment. The behavioral nature of the treatment translates well to telehealth, particularly because exposures and interventions are conducted in the actual environments where the BFRB occurs (the client’s home, where most pulling and picking happens). For pediatric BFRBs, in-person treatment may be preferable, depending on developmental considerations.

What is the difference between focused and automatic BFRBs? Focused BFRBs are performed with full awareness, often with ritualistic features and specific antecedents. Automatic BFRBs are performed with minimal awareness, often during other activities. Most clients experience both subtypes in different contexts. Effective treatment must address both when they are present, which is one reason ComB (with its multi-domain assessment) typically produces better outcomes than single-component interventions.

Related Reading

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2022). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed., text rev.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425787

Azrin, N. H., & Nunn, R. G. (1973). Habit-reversal: A method of eliminating nervous habits and tics. Behavior Research and Therapy, 11(4), 619-628.

Bloch, M. H., Landeros-Weisenberger, A., Dombrowski, P., Kelmendi, B., Wegner, R., Nudel, J., Pittenger, C., Leckman, J. F., & Coric, V. (2007). Systematic review: Pharmacological and behavioral treatment for trichotillomania. Biological Psychiatry, 62(8), 839-846.

Diefenbach, G. J., Tolin, D. F., Meunier, S., & Worhunsky, P. (2008). Emotion regulation and trichotillomania: A comparison of clinical and nonclinical hair pulling. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 39(1), 32-41.

Duke, D. C., Keeley, M. L., Geffken, G. R., & Storch, E. A. (2010). Trichotillomania: A current review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30(2), 181-193.

Falkenstein, M. J., Mouton-Odum, S., Mansueto, C. S., Goldfinger Golomb, R., & Haaga, D. A. F. (2014). Comprehensive behavioral treatment of trichotillomania: A treatment development study. Behavior Modification, 38(1), 142-167.

Flessner, C. A., Conelea, C. A., Woods, D. W., Franklin, M. E., Keuthen, N. J., & Cashin, S. E. (2008). Styles of pulling in trichotillomania: Exploring differences in symptom severity, phenomenology, and functional impact. Behavior Research and Therapy, 46(3), 345-357.

Franklin, M. E., Flessner, C. A., Woods, D. W., Keuthen, N. J., Piacentini, J. C., Moore, P., Stein, D. J., Cohen, S. B., & Wilson, M. A. (2008). The Child and Adolescent Trichotillomania Impact Project: Descriptive psychopathology, comorbidity, functional impairment, and treatment utilization. Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics, 29(6), 493-500.

Grant, J. E., & Chamberlain, S. R. (2020). Trichotillomania and skin-picking disorder: Different kinds of OCD. Focus, 19(4), 426-431.

Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., & Chamberlain, S. R. (2009). Neuropsychological aspects of pathological hair-pulling. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 43(4), 463-470.

Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., Hampshire, A., Schreiber, L. R., & Chamberlain, S. R. (2012). White matter abnormalities in skin picking disorder: A diffusion tensor imaging study. Neuropsychopharmacology, 38(5), 763-769.

Grant, J. E., Odlaug, B. L., & Kim, S. W. (2009). N-acetylcysteine, a glutamate modulator, in the treatment of trichotillomania: A double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Archives of General Psychiatry, 66(7), 756-763.

Houghton, D. C., Maas, J., Twohig, M. P., Saunders, S. M., Compton, S. N., Neal-Barnett, A. M., Franklin, M. E., & Woods, D. W. (2016). Comorbidity and quality of life in adults with hair-pulling disorder. Psychiatry Research, 239, 12-19.

Klonsky, E. D., Victor, S. E., & Saffer, B. Y. (2014). Nonsuicidal self-injury: What we know, and what we need to know. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 59(11), 565-568.

Mansueto, C. S., Townsley Stemberger, R. M., Thomas, A. M., & Golomb, R. G. (1997). Trichotillomania: A comprehensive behavioral model. Clinical Psychology Review, 17(5), 567-577.

Novak, C. E., Keuthen, N. J., Stewart, S. E., & Pauls, D. L. (2009). A twin concordance study of trichotillomania. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B, 150B(7), 944-949.

Snorrason, I., Belleau, E. L., & Woods, D. W. (2012). How related are hair-pulling disorder (trichotillomania) and skin-picking disorder? A review of evidence for comorbidity, similarities, and shared etiology. Clinical Psychology Review, 32(7), 618-629.

Woods, D. W., Wetterneck, C. T., & Flessner, C. A. (2006). A controlled evaluation of acceptance and commitment therapy plus habit reversal for trichotillomania. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(5), 639-656.

Felix Murad, M.Ed., LPC-S, LMHC, CMHC, NCC, is the founder of Murad Counseling PLLC, a telehealth private practice serving clients in Texas, Washington, New Hampshire, and Florida. He specializes in OCD, ERP, EMDR, BFRBs, trauma, and couples therapy. His BFRB work is grounded in the Comprehensive Behavioral Model (ComB) and integrates Habit Reversal Training and acceptance-based interventions calibrated to the individual client’s presentation.