2026-09-18T21:44:55Zhttps://dspace.mit.edu/server/oai/requestoai:dspace.mit.edu:1721.1/1629852025-10-07T04:13:25Zcom_1721.1_7582com_1721.1_7581col_1721.1_131023
Gabrieli, John
Liu, Andi
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
2025-10-06T17:38:12Z
2025-10-06T17:38:12Z
2025-05
2025-06-23T14:02:52.798Z
https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/162985
This thesis tests two design questions for Large Language Model (LLM) Chatbot Therapists: Which therapeutic school suits an LLM best, and does an explicit Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reflection improve outcomes? We prompted GPT-4.1-mini to act as eight therapists — CBT, Narrative, Psychodynamic, and SFBT, each with and without a ToM step — and held 240 simulated sessions with scripted AI patients. SFBT achieved the greatest projected PHQ-9 improvement (around 4 points), significantly higher than CBT, Narrative, or Psychodynamic approaches. Immediate distress (SUDS) fell modestly and uniformly across schools. ToM reasoning did not alter either measure. The findings show that extra “thinking time” might not automatically translate into therapeutic gain, but also highlight a current strength of LLMs: executing brief, rule-based therapies.
M.Eng.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted
Copyright retained by author(s)
https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-EDU/1.0/
All Therapies Are Equal - Unless You’re a Bot: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Four Therapy Schools for AI Chatbot Therapists
Thesis
application/pdf
Master
Master of Engineering in Electrical Engineering and Computer Science
Publication
unknown
unknown
<Publication xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/1.1/" id="6a32ee7d-0508-49bd-b240-d9e58e56c9da">
<Type xmlns="https://www.openaire.eu/cerif-profile/vocab/COAR_Publication_Types">http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_1843</Type>
<Title>All Therapies Are Equal - Unless You’re a Bot: Evaluating the Effectiveness of Four Therapy Schools for AI Chatbot Therapists</Title>
<PublishedIn>
<Publication>
</Publication>
</PublishedIn>
<PublicationDate>2025-05</PublicationDate>
<Authors>
<Author>
<DisplayName>Liu, Andi</DisplayName>
<Affiliation>
<OrgUnit>
</OrgUnit>
</Affiliation>
</Author>
</Authors>
<Editors>
</Editors>
<Publishers>
<Publisher>
<DisplayName>Massachusetts Institute of Technology</DisplayName>
<OrgUnit />
</Publisher>
</Publishers>
<License>https://rightsstatements.org/page/InC-EDU/1.0/</License>
<Abstract>This thesis tests two design questions for Large Language Model (LLM) Chatbot Therapists: Which therapeutic school suits an LLM best, and does an explicit Theory-of-Mind (ToM) reflection improve outcomes? We prompted GPT-4.1-mini to act as eight therapists — CBT, Narrative, Psychodynamic, and SFBT, each with and without a ToM step — and held 240 simulated sessions with scripted AI patients. SFBT achieved the greatest projected PHQ-9 improvement (around 4 points), significantly higher than CBT, Narrative, or Psychodynamic approaches. Immediate distress (SUDS) fell modestly and uniformly across schools. ToM reasoning did not alter either measure. The findings show that extra “thinking time” might not automatically translate into therapeutic gain, but also highlight a current strength of LLMs: executing brief, rule-based therapies.</Abstract>
<Access xmlns="http://purl.org/coar/access_right"
>
</Access>
</Publication>