# Rolling With Resistance: Preference-Optimized LLM Counselors Can Trade Goal Persistence for Relational Attunement in Motivational Interviewing

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.28814 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2607.28814/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 15 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 30 Jul 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 15 of 15)

- [Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2203.02155/) (2022)
- [Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Model](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.18290/) (2023)
- [G-Eval: NLG Evaluation using GPT-4 with Better Human Alignment](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.16634/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Reward Model Overoptimization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2210.10760/) (2022)
- [Large Language Models are not Fair Evaluators](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2305.17926/) (2023)
- [Towards Understanding Sycophancy in Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.13548/) (2023)
- [Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2212.09251/) (2022)
- [LLM Evaluators Recognize and Favor Their Own Generations](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2404.13076/) (2024)
- [Fine-Grained Human Feedback Gives Better Rewards for Language Model Training](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.01693/) (2023)
- [Rewarded soups: towards Pareto-optimal alignment by interpolating weights fine-tuned on diverse rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2306.04488/) (2023)
- [Arithmetic Control of LLMs for Diverse User Preferences: Directional Preference Alignment with Multi-Objective Rewards](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.18571/) (2024)
- [Language Models Learn to Mislead Humans via RLHF](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2409.12822/) (2024)
- [Pareto Multi-Objective Alignment for Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2508.07768/) (2025)
- [Mitigating Reward Over-Optimization in RLHF via Behavior-Supported Regularization](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2503.18130/) (2025)
- [Dynamic Reward Adjustment in Multi-Reward Reinforcement Learning for Counselor Reflection Generation](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2403.13578/) (2024)

## Abstract (arXiv)

In Motivational Interviewing (MI), a client's sustain talk (arguments for the status quo) calls for the counselor to roll with resistance, a move that can fail in two opposite ways: capitulation (abandoning the change agenda to preserve rapport) or confrontation (arguing or directing, overriding the client's autonomy). We introduce a two-axis evaluation of counselor responses, anchored in the Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity (MITI) code, Goal Persistence (GP) and Relational Attunement (RA), yielding a four-quadrant framing in which rolling with resistance is high on both, and we ask whether penalizing one failure through preference optimization teaches rolling with resistance or provokes its opposite. From the expert-annotated AnnoMI corpus we build topic-disjoint Direct Preference Optimization data whose preference sets differ only in which failure is rejected, using on-policy negatives. An automatic judge, validated against AnnoMI's expert labels and rechecked by trained human coders, scores blind pairwise win-rates against each base under a firewall in which disjoint model families generate, label, and judge. Across three aligned instruction models spanning the Qwen and Llama families, penalizing confrontation reliably lowers goal persistence below parity, on every base and in every seed run, a robust cost, whereas the attunement gain is base-dependent, present on two of the three bases but absent on the third. Penalizing capitulation is inert, because these models rarely capitulate on-policy, so the trade is gated by each base's failure profile. A prompt-only control raises attunement without the goal-persistence cost, locating the cost in the optimization rather than in attunement itself.