## 4 Results
### Emotional Affect Evaluation
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Taguette**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**ChatGPT**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Cginni**} \\
**Tool** & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Task 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Task 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Task 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Task 2**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Task 1**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Task 2**} \\  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Dev.**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Mean**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Std.**} \\ \hline Determined & 3.47 & 1.00 & 3.58 & 1.14 & 3.73 & 1.19 & 3.37 & 1.18 & 3.61 & 1.06 & 3.44 & 1.19 \\ Attentive & 3.62 & 1.08 & 3.20 & 1.12 & 3.24 & 1.16 & 3.24 & 1.14 & 3.27 & 1.20 & 3.27 & 1.22 \\ Active & 3.56 & 1.04 & 3.40 & 1.13 & 2.89 & 1.30 & 3.00 & 1.29 & 3.01 & 1.28 & 3.01 & 1.29 \\ Inspired & 2.48 & 1.13 & 2.27 & 1.14 & 2.89 & 1.35 & 2.55 & 1.25 & 2.72 & 1.31 & 2.77 & 1.34 \\ Alert & 2.67 & 1.12 & 2.67 & 1.20 & 3.02 & 1.29 & 2.83 & 1.25 & 2.73 & 1.30 & 2.72 & 1.29 \\ Nervous & 2.12 & 1.21 & 2.08 & 1.29 & 1.55 & 0.97 & 1.77 & 1.12 & 1.61 & 1.00 & 1.74 & 1.10 \\ Afraid & 1.35 & 0.72 & 1.14 & 0.39 & 1.32 & 0.76 & 1.34 & 0.76 & 1.35 & 0.69 & 1.27 & 0.63 \\ Upset & 1.94 & 1.18 & 1.83 & 1.20 & 1.36 & 0.77 & 1.66 & 1.087 & 1.45 & 0.83 & 1.53 & 0.98 \\ Hostile & 1.66 & 1.02 & 1.67 & 1.19 & 1.25 & 0.71 & 1.45 & 0.974 & 1.45 & 0.95 & 1.40 & 0.90 \\ Ashamed & 1.52 & 0.97 & 1.39 & 0.87 & 1.35 & 0.78 & 1.32 & 0.814 & 1.31 & 0.73 & 1.21 & 0.65 \\ \hline + emotion & 15.8 & & 15.12 & & 15.77 & & 14.99 & & 15.34 & & 15.21 & \\ \(-\) emotion & 8.59 & & 8.11 & & 6.83 & & 7.54 & & 7.17 & & 7.15 & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 11: Descriptives for I-PANAS-SF for all tools and tasks. Figure 13: Mean Emotional Affects By Tool And Task. Comparing emotional effects between tasks and tools (see Table 13) showed that while positive emotional experiences were comparable across tasks and tools, negative emotions varied more significantly, particularly between Taguette and the AI-based tools (ChatGPT and Gemini). For positive emotions, the statistical tests showed no significant differences in positive emotions between tasks or tools, meaning all tools and tasks generated similar levels of positive emotions. The Mann-Whitney U test estimates were small (e.g., \(-1.17\), \(-0.33\)), and the \(p\)-values were higher than 0.05, indicating no significant differences between the compared groups. Positive emotion scores were also compared between all three tools with the Kruskal-Wallis H test, which resulted in nonsignificant values (\(p=0.96\)), indicating no statistically significant difference between the three tools. When we compared negative emotion scores between all three tools, significant differences were found in negative emotions between the tools. The Kruskal-Wallis H test yielded a more significant statistic (27.06) with a \(p\)-value \(<0.001\), indicating significant differences in the negative emotion scores across all three tools. Comparison of negative scores between the two different tools provided results with higher values (e.g., \(-4.36\), \(-4.51\)) and \(p\)-values \(<0.001\), indicating significant differences between tools. The Mann-Whitney U test revealed significant differences between Taguette vs ChatGPT and Taguette vs Gemini (\(p<0.001\)) but no significant difference between ChatGPT vs Gemini. To summarize, the ChatGPT tool generated higher positive and lower negative emotions, especially in the case of Task 1. Compared to ChatGPT, Taguette demonstrated good positive emotion scores, but, the tool triggered slightly stronger negative feelings,