Beyond Reflection: Affirmation as a Promising Behavioral Marker Associated with Quality in Text-Based Counseling

AI is increasingly used for mental health and well-being support, creating an urgent need for safer engagement, while design, evaluation, and governance take time to develop. We explore a complementary approach: helping users critically reflect on their own AI conversations. We introduce CounselReflect, a tool that translates literature-grounded counseling quality metrics into a user-facing reflection framework. Using CounselReflect as a study probe, we interviewed 21 users of AI for mental health and well-being support. Although most participants did not routinely reflect on their conversations, they articulated concrete questions they would want reflection to address. Tool-assisted reflection also revealed challenges: participants selectively sought evidence confirming existing perceptions of AI and prioritized dimensions they already valued. We argue that reflection tools should surface blind spots and scaffold more holistic examination of AI interactions. Finally, overcoming emotional barriers to revisiting tense conversations remains a major design challenge and warrants input from future work.

Large language models (LLMs) may support counseling training, yet evidence from Japanese-language interactions and automated quality ratings remains limited. We examined 18 fixed Japanese-language counseling transcripts generated through artificial intelligence (AI)-to-AI interactions under three counselor conditions: GPT-minimal (GPT-4-turbo with a minimal role instruction), GPT-SMDP (GPT-4-turbo with the Structured Multi-step Dialogue Prompt [SMDP]), and Claude-SMDP (Claude-3-Opus with SMDP). Fifteen counseling experts rated transcripts on four adapted global scales from the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding manual and an overall-quality item; three newer LLMs independently rated the same transcripts in three iterations. In this fixed stimulus set, SMDP-condition dialogues received higher expert ratings for cultivating change talk, partnership, empathy, and overall quality than GPT-minimal dialogues; the two SMDP counselor models did not differ. LLM ratings were reproducible but generally more lenient than expert-reference ratings, particularly for softening sustain talk and overall quality. Simulated-client naturalness was below the scale midpoint. These findings provide an expert-referenced benchmark for Japanese-language AI counseling simulations and show that reproducible LLM ratings should not be treated as calibrated counseling-quality evidence without expert validation. This study does not test clinical effectiveness or human-client outcomes.

Effectively addressing client resistance is a sophisticated clinical skill in psychological counseling, yet practitioners often lack timely and scalable supervisory feedback to refine their approaches. Although current NLP research has examined overall counseling quality and general therapeutic skills, it fails to provide granular evaluations of high-stakes moments where clients exhibit resistance. In this work, we present a comprehensive pipeline for the multi-dimensional evaluation of human counselors' interventions specifically targeting client resistance in text-based therapy. We introduce a theory-driven framework that decomposes counselor responses into four distinct communication mechanisms. Leveraging this framework, we curate and share an expert-annotated dataset of real-world counseling excerpts, pairing counselor-client interactions with professional ratings and explanatory rationales. Using this data, we perform full-parameter instruction tuning on a Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct backbone to model fine-grained evaluative judgments of response quality and generate explanations underlying. Experimental results show that our approach can effectively distinguish the quality of different communication mechanisms (77-81% F1), substantially outperforming GPT-4o and Claude-3.5-Sonnet (45-59% F1). Moreover, the model produces high-quality explanations that closely align with expert references and receive near-ceiling ratings from human experts (2.8-2.9/3.0). A controlled experiment with 43 counselors further confirms that receiving these AI-generated feedback significantly improves counselors' ability to respond effectively to client resistance.