Move by Move: Measuring and Steering How LLMs Conduct Psychotherapy

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used as ad hoc therapists. While prior research has found that LLMs outperform human counselors in generating single-turn empathetic responses, fewer studies have compared their behaviors across multi-turn sessions. In this study, we compare the session-level behaviors of human peer counselors with those of an LLM, both trained on the same manual to deliver multi-turn, single-session Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT). Our three-phase, mixed-methods study involved: (a) an 18-month ethnography of a peer support platform, where seven counselors iteratively refined CBT prompts through 110 self-counseling sessions and 60 weekly focus groups; (b) a novel session generation method that allows direct, controlled comparison of human and LLM counselors under matched conditions---client responses were drawn from publicly available human-led CBT sessions while counselor responses were generated by a CBT-prompted LLM; and (c) expert evaluations conducted by three licensed clinical psychologists. Through data triangulation, our results show a trade-off. Human peer counselors use relational techniques to interpret subtle cues, adapt CBT to users' values and cultural contexts, and use strategies such as small talk and contextually relevant self-disclosure to build rapport and guide the session, but often at the expense of session structure and therapeutic focus. LLM counselors, on the other hand, demonstrate greater methodological adherence to CBT techniques, but struggle to sustain turn-taking, frequently fail to distinguish between clinically important and trivial content, and are more prone to lecturing and imposing solutions. LLM counselors also tend to produce ``deceptive empathy'', excessively anthropomorphic responses that can inflate user expectations of genuine human care.

Mental health disorders affect over 1 billion people worldwide, yet access to care remains limited by workforce shortages and cost constraints. While AI systems show therapeutic promise, current alignment approaches optimize objectives independently, failing to balance patient preferences with clinical safety. We survey 335 individuals with lived mental health experience to collect preference rankings across therapeutic dimensions, then develop a multi-objective alignment framework using direct preference optimization. We train reward models for six criteria -- empathy, safety, active listening, self-motivated change, trust/rapport, and patient autonomy -- and systematically compare multi-objective approaches against single-objective optimization, supervised fine-tuning, and parameter merging. Multi-objective DPO (MODPO) achieves superior balance (77.6% empathy, 62.6% safety) compared to single-objective optimization (93.6% empathy, 47.8% safety), and therapeutic criteria outperform general communication principles by 17.2%. Blinded clinician evaluation confirms MODPO is consistently preferred, with LLM-evaluator agreement comparable to inter-clinician reliability.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being used for emotional support. They are also being developed for formal therapy purposes. However, LLMs like ChaptGPT or Llama are often developed with content moderation guardrails that prevent them from discussing sensitive subjects with users for both liability and safety purposes, and this inability to broach these subjects may affect their capacity as therapists. In this study, we perform an algorithm audit on three state-of-the-art moderation systems (OpenAI's moderation endpoint, Meta's Llama Guard, and Google's Shield Gemma) to investigate the extent to which these systems flag the content of real-life therapy sessions as undesirable. Our results raise implications for the limitations that users and organizations may encounter when designing LLMs to play the part of a therapist.