Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41909550›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026

Granularity paradox: how emotion taxonomies shape GPT-5's affective cognition and human-AI alignment.

Fa Zhang, Jian Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Fa ZhangSchool of Management, Guangdong University of Science and Technology, Dongguan, China.
Jian ChenSchool of Business, Beijing Institute of Technology, Zhuhai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capability in textual emotion detection. However, LLM evaluations often treat the emotion taxonomy-the "cognitive ruler" defining the emotional space-as a neutral background variable. The extent to which taxonomic complexity moderates LLM performance remains underexplored. Method: This study systematically evaluates the impact of emotion taxonomy on GPT-5's annotation behavior. We constructed a dataset of 2,848 Chinese Weibo posts. Five human annotators and GPT-5 (zero-shot) labeled the data across five distinct taxonomies, each with varying levels of granularity: SemEval (4 classes), Ekman (6 classes), Chinese SevenEmotions (7 classes), Plutchik (8 classes), and GoEmotions (27 classes). A rigorous experimental design, including randomized ordering and washout periods, was implemented to minimize sequence effects. By comparing the results of GPT-5 and manual annotation, the analysis is conducted across three dimensions: performance, consistency, and bias patterns. Results: Results reveal a significant "granularity paradox": GPT-5's performance is strongly negatively correlated with taxonomic complexity, with performance collapsing in fine-grained settings (GoEmotions). Crucially, we identified systematic misalignment mechanisms: (1) Consistency decay: Human-AI agreement significantly deteriorates as semantic boundaries blur in complex taxonomies; (2) Hyper-sensitivity bias: GPT-5 exhibits a tendency to over-interpret neutral texts as emotional, with false-positive rates increasing with taxonomy size; and (3) Arousal shift: The model consistently misclassifies low-arousal negative emotions (e.g., sadness) as high-arousal prototypes (e.g., fear/anger), reflecting a valence-based rather than nuance-based inference logic. Notably, the indigenous SevenEmotions did not yield superior cultural alignment compared to Western taxonomies. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that emotion taxonomies function as a critical hyperparameter that shapes the cognitive boundaries of GPT. While GPT shows promise, its reliability is compromised by complex taxonomies. Researchers must balance granular detail against model robustness when deploying LLMs for psychological analysis.

Indexed as

emotion taxonomyGPT-5granularity paradoxhuman-AI alignmentsystematic bias

Identifiers

PMID41909550
PMCPMC13021436

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.