Publications

Engelmann, N., Schmidt, E.-M., Alhosseini, A., Hannikainen, I. R., & Dong, M. (2026). People expect less but show equal influence of LLM versus human moral advice. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, Article 101413. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2026.101413

Hannikainen, I. R., Engelmann, N., González-García, C., & Ruz, M. (2026). Textualism as an effort-accuracy trade-off in rule enforcement [Preprint]. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.28676.49284

Schmidt, E.-M., Engelmann, N., & Dong, M. (2026). Rethinking human responses to AI: A person-machine-context framework for human-AI interaction [Preprint]. ResearchGate. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.35387.37929

Kirfel, L., Engelmann, N., Maaß, A., Nussberger, A.-M., & Phillips, J. S. (2026). LLM-generated possibilities increase blame attribution. In G. Boleda, I. Dautriche, M. Maldonado, C. Saldana, & T. Torrent (Eds.), Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 4680–4686).

Shurakov, N., Kolbe, M., Engelmann, N., & Wiegmann, A. (2026). GPT-4's alignment with human lie and falsity attribution in cases of deceptive implicatures. In V. C. Müller, A. R. Dewey, L. Dung, & G. Löhr (Eds.), Philosophy of artificial intelligence: The state of the art (pp. 431–443). Springer Nature.

Engelmann, N., & Kirfel, L. (2025). Who caused it? Different effects of statistical and prescriptive abnormality on causal selection in chains. In K. Tobia (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of experimental jurisprudence (pp. 481–501). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009170901.032

PDF Project DOI

Engelmann, N., Kirfel, L., Nussberger, A.-M., Rilla, R., & Rahwan, I. (2025). Framing, not transparency, reduces cheating in algorithmic delegation. In D. Barner, N. Bramley, A. Ruggeri, & C. Walker (Eds.), Proceedings of the 47th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 908–914).

Engelmann, N. (2025). Murderer at the door! To lie or to mislead? In A. Wiegmann (Ed.), Advances in experimental philosophy of lying. Bloomsbury.

Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Max Planck Society, Bengfort, T., Blunk, J., Engelmann, N., Feg, T., Herzog, S., Kleemeyer, M., Schwarze, S., Nix, S., Peikert, A., Pit, I., & Tilsley, P. (2025). Open Science and Research Data Management Guidelines [Version 1]. https://doi.org/10.17617/2.3682163

Engelmann, N., Almeida, G. F. C. F., Oliveira de Sousa, F., Prochownik, K., Hannikainen, I., Struchiner, N., & Magen, S. (2024). Apply the laws, if they are good: Moral evaluations linearly predict whether judges should apply the law. Cognitive Science, 48(10), Article e70001. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.70001

PDF Project DOI

Almeida, G. F. C. F., Nunes, J. L., Engelmann, N., Wiegmann, A., & de Araújo, M. (2024). Exploring the psychology of GPT-4's moral and legal reasoning. Artificial Intelligence, 333, Article 104145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artint.2024.104145

PDF Project DOI

Engelmann, N., & Hannikainen, I. R. (2024). Does moral valence influence the construal of alternative possibilities? Possibility Studies & Society, 2(3), 318–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/27538699241231026

PDF Project DOI

Engelmann, N., Hannikainen, I. R., González-García, C., & Ruz, M. (2024). Understanding rule enforcement using drift diffusion models. In L. Samuelson, S. Frank, M. Toneva, A. Mackey, & E. Hazeltine (Eds.), Proceedings of the 46th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 114–120).

Stephan, S., Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2023). The perceived dilution of causal strength. Cognitive Psychology, 140, Article 101540. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2022.101540

PDF Project DOI

Wiegmann, A., & Engelmann, N. (2022). Is lying morally different from misleading? An empirical investigation. In L. Horn (Ed.), From lying to perjury: Linguistic and legal perspectives on lies and other falsehoods (pp. 89–111). De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110733730-005

PDF Project DOI

Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2022). How to weigh lives. A computational model of moral judgment in multiple-outcome structures. Cognition, 218, Article 104910. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104910

PDF Project DOI

Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2022). How causal structure, causal strength, and foreseeability affect moral judgments. Cognition, 226, Article 105167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105167

PDF Project DOI

Viebahn, E., Wiegmann, A., Engelmann, N., & Willemsen, P. (2021). Can a question be a lie? An empirical investigation. Ergo, 8, Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3998/ergo.1144

PDF Project DOI

Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2021). A causal proximity effect in moral judgment. In T. Fitch, C. Lamm, H. Leder, & K. Teßmar-Raible (Eds.), Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2330–2336).

Wiegmann, A., & Engelmann, N. (2020). Entwicklungen und Probleme der Moralpsychologie zu Beginn des 21. Jahrhunderts. In N. Paulo & J. C. Bublitz (Eds.), Empirische Ethik - Grundlagentexte aus Psychologie und Philosophie (pp. 139–175). Suhrkamp.

Hagmayer, Y., & Engelmann, N. (2020). Asking questions to provide a causal explanation – Do people search for the information required by cognitive psychological theories? In E. A. Bar-Asher Siegal & N. Boneh (Eds.), Perspectives on causation: Selected papers from the Jerusalem 2017 workshop (pp. 121–147). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34308-8_4

Engelmann, N., & Waldmann, M. R. (2019). Moral reasoning with multiple effects: Justification and moral responsibility for side effects. In W. D. Gray & C. D. Schunn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 41st Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1703–1709).

Hagmayer, Y., & Engelmann, N. (2014). Causal beliefs about depression in different cultural groups — what do cognitive psychological theories of causal learning and reasoning predict? Frontiers in Psychology, 5, Article 1303. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01303

Neth, H., Engelmann, N., & Mayrhofer, R. (2014). Foraging for alternatives: Ecological rationality in keeping options viable. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1078–1083).