Imagine a freshly baked tray of cookies hot out of the oven. What do you think of? Chocolate chip, oatmeal raisin, or sugar doodles are just some that come to mind. There are so many cookies to choose from; the possibilities are endless.
A cookie-cutter make be a practical way to approach making cookies but not so much when it comes to therapy. “Cookie-cutter therapy” refers to a therapeutic approach that applies the same treatment plan to all individuals, regardless of their unique needs, goals, or circumstances. It’s a “one-size-fits-all” approach, similar to using a cookie cutter to create identical shapes. This contrasts with individualized therapy, which tailors treatment plans to each person’s specific needs and goals.
What does cookie-cutter mean in slang?
In slang, “cookie cutter” means generic, unoriginal, and lacking individuality, implying a standardized or mass-produced approach. It suggests something is indistinguishable from others and lacks special or unique qualities.
The origin of the term “cookie cutter” comes from the kitchen tool used to create identical cookie shapes. When used figuratively, it implies that something is mass-produced, unoriginal, and lacking in individuality. It has developed a negative connotation, suggesting that something is boring or uninspired because it lacks originality.
The Cookie-Cutter Approach to Psychotherapy
In therapy, the cookie-cutter approach fails to recognize and address the unique characteristics and needs of each individual. It relies on pre-determined standardized protocols or methods that are applied uniformly, often without sufficient consideration for individual differences. In many instances, this approach can be ineffective because it doesn’t account for the diversity of human experiences, needs, and responses to treatment.
When contrasted with personalized therapy, individualized therapy, on the other hand, emphasizes a tailored approach, considering the patient’s specific situation, goals, and preferences to create a more effective treatment plan.
This can lead to missed opportunities. A cookie-cutter approach may miss valuable insights into a patient’s unique situation and the underlying factors contributing to their problems. It can also increase resistance as patients may become resistant to therapy if they feel that the treatment is not relevant or tailored to their needs.
In the context of massage therapy, a “cookie cutter” approach might involve providing the same therapeutic routine to every client, regardless of their specific pain points or needs. In mental health, a “cookie cutter” approach might involve applying the same therapy techniques to all individuals with a particular diagnosis, without considering individual variations.
Why is the Cookie-Cutter approach problematic?
For one thing, the cookie-cutter approach to therapy has been found to be ineffective. A one-size-fits-all approach often fails to address the unique needs of the individual, leading to potentially ineffective or even harmful outcomes. It can be disempowering and can diminish the individual’s agency and control over their own treatment plan.
A cookie-cutter approach lacks adaptation and often relies on pre-determined protocols or exercises without considering how the individual is responding. This can lead to a mismatch between the treatment and the patient’s needs, potentially hindering progress. When treatments are not tailored to the individual, it can lead to poor recovery and potentially long-lasting rehabilitation issues.
Cookie-cutter therapy leads to burnout for therapists. Repeatedly providing the same treatment can lead to burnout for therapists as well, as it can become monotonous and lack the opportunity for creative adaptation.
Another criticism of cookie-cutter therapy is that it reduces the human element to a formula. It can dehumanize the therapeutic process by treating individuals as if they are interchangeable.
In essence, “cookie cutter therapy” is a term used to describe a lack of personalization and individualization in therapeutic interventions, which can lead to less effective and potentially harmful outcomes.
Randi Fredricks, Ph.D.
References
Kazdin AE. Arbitrary metrics: implications for identifying evidence-based treatments. Am Psychol 2006;61(1):42–9
Shedler, J. (2020). Where is the evidence for “evidence-based” therapy? Outcome Research and the Future of Psychoanalysis, 44–56.
Driessen E, Van HL, Don FJ, et al. The efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy and psychodynamic therapy in the outpatient treatment of major depression: a randomized clinical trial. Am J Psychiatry 2013;170(9):1041–50.
Challenging the Cognitive Behavioural Therapies: The Overselling of CBT’s Evidence Base (2015, Jan 23) Jonathan Shedler – Where is the Evidence for Evidence-Based Therapy [Video]. YouTube.
Westen D, Novotny CM, Thompson-Brenner H. The empirical status of empirically supported psychotherapies: assumptions, findings, and reporting in controlled clinical trials. Psychol Bull 2004;130(4):631–63.
Denworth, L. (2019). A significant problem. Scientific American, 321(4), 62–67.
American Psychological Association. Recognition of psychotherapy effectiveness: the APA resolution. Psychotherapy 2013;50(1):98–101.
