## 4 Results
### Emotional Affect Evaluation  
Table 11 shows the descriptive statistics of the I-PANAS-SF items for both tasks and all three tools (Figure 13). Regarding the determination, the average scores varied from 3.37 to 3.73 for each tool and task. Task 1's ChatGPT tool had the highest average score, suggesting that users felt more determined when using this tool for their job. The Taguette had the highest mean value (3.62) for Task 1, indicating more attentiveness to this tool and task. The scores for attentiveness varied slightly. Using ChatGPT to solve Task 1 resulted in users being less active than Taguette, with a mean value of 3.56. The ChatGPT tool inspired users the most when they completed Task 1 (score of 2.89). With ratings ranging from 2.67 to 3.02, all three tools demonstrated a moderate level of awareness for each of the three tasks and tools. Users were the least nervous while completing Task 1 using the ChatGPT (1.55) and the most nervous when they had to complete Task 1 using the Taguette tool (2.12). The mean scores for all tools and tasks were quite low, indicating that users rarely felt afraid. Task 1 with the Taguette tool received the highest score for upset emotions (1.94), whereas in the case of other tools and tasks, the upset scores were lower. Hostility scores were modest, with slight variations among tasks and tools and the lowest score for ChatGPT in the case of solving Task 1 (1.25). Overall, feelings of humiliation were slight across all tools and tasks, with Gemini scoring the lowest (1.21) in the case of Task 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Task 1**} \\ \hline
**Sample 1–Sample 2** & **Test Statistic** & **Std. Error** & **Std. Test Statistic** & **Sig.** \\ \hline ChatGPT-Gemini & \(-21.312\) & \(10.304\) & \(-2.068\) & \(0.039\) \\ ChatGPT-Taguette & \(-73.135\) & \(10.421\) & \(-7.018\) & \(<\)**0.001** \\ Gemini-Taguette & \(-51.823\) & \(10.273\) & \(-5.045\) & \(<\)**0.001** \\ \hline \multicolumn{4}{l}{_Note: Bold values indicate statistical significance at the 0.05 level._} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 10: Pairwise comparison of SEQ scores for tools (Task 1) with Dunn’s Test. Figure 12: Interpretation of mean SEQ values per tool, based on [85]. Positive emotion scores were relatively high across all tools and tasks, where the highest positive emotional response (15.77) was in the case of ChatGPT and Task 1, and the lowest score (14.99) was in the case of ChatGPT and Task 2 (see Table 12 and Figure 14). In the case of negative emotions, the instrument provided the highest negative emotions (8.59) for the Taguette tool and solving Task 1. At the same time, ChatGPT Task 1 produced the lowest negative emotional response (6.83), indicating that ChatGPT generally leads to lower negative emotional experiences. In the case of the Taguette tool, the positive emotion scores are relatively consistent, with Task 1 slightly higher than Task 2. Positive emotion estimates were relatively higher compared to other tools. In the case of ChatGPT, we noticed a slight drop in positive emotion from Task 1 to Task 2. However, the positive emotion scores for ChatGPT remained high overall, indicating that completing the tasks with ChatGPT performed consistently well. For Gemini, the positive emotion scores were also similar for both tasks, where Task 1 slightly outperformed Task 2. The emotions were moderately high but consistent between both tasks for the Taguette tool. In the case of the ChatGPT, the participants had the lowest negative emotion scores across both tasks. And in the case of Gemini, the scores for the emotions were slightly higher when compared to ChatGPT, but similar to Taguette.