ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Granularity paradox: how emotion taxonomies shape GPT-5's affective cognition and human-AI alignment.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.