Skip to content

Research of differences in the quality of decisions among depressive and healthy persons using the secretary problem as a paradigma

Research of differences in the quality of decisions among depressive and healthy persons using the secretary problem as a paradigma

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
DRKS
Registry ID
DRKS00005449
Enrollment
80
Registered
2013-12-18
Start date
2014-01-08
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2025-04-07

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

F32 F33

Interventions

Group 1: Experimental group 1: 20 depressive subjects (F32 or F33) 1) questionnaires (demographics, BDI-II, BSI, PSWQ, STAI, MWTB, SPM short form, LMI-K, BFI-S, Emo-16) Duration: about 30 min 2) Gro

Sponsors

Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Abteilung Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All
Age
18 Years to 65 Years

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Essential requirements for participation are an age between 18-65 years, sufficient knowledge of the german language as well as the existence of a consent form. DEP sample (subjects with a depressive disorder): It exists a diagnosis of major depression according to DSM-IV (SCID-through I). Sample KG (Healthy control subjects without a mental disorder): No mental disorder according to DSM-IV (SCID-I) during the last 5 years. In addition, inconspicuous results in Brief Symptom Inventory (Franke, 2000).

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Exclusion criteria include the presence of a current addictive disorder, schizophrenic disorders, adult ADHD, personality disorders, eating disorders, and acute suicidal tendendcies.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Variant 1 for the experimental and control group 1: Experimental paradigm : The secretary-problem (sp) in the basic version (see Seale & Rapoport, 1997) with the variation that the subjects receive a certain amount of points, depending on whether they have chosen the best, second best or third best, etc. applicant. The amount of points varies depending on the selected absolute rank (cf. Bearden, Rapoport & Murphy, 2006). The points will be converted to a certain amount of money in the end. Evaluated will be: Performance: the average amount of points, that is, the average absolute rank of the chosen candidate at T1 (baseline) and at T2 (after a ¾ year or after a short-term therapy) Search length: the average number of applicants considered at T1 (baseline) and at T2 (after a ¾ year or after a short-term therapy) Relative rank: the average relative rank selected at T1 (baseline) and at T2 (after a ¾ year or after a short-term therapy) Decision rules: the selected thresholds for the decisions of the subjects, ie. How many applicants will be let go by until a decision is made at T1 (baseline) and at T2 (after a ¾ year or after a short-term therapy) Variant 2 for the experimental and control group 2: complex secretary-problem: two rank informations (two attributes) must be observed (see Bearden et al., 2005) Evaluated will be: Performance: the average amount of points, that is, the average absolute ranks of the chosen candidate at T1 (baseline) Search length: the average number of applicants considered at T1 (baseline) Relative rank: the average relative ranks selected at T1 (baseline) Variant 3 for the experimental and control group 2: The secretary problem: punishment condition: Variation with respect to the obtained message, if not the best candidate is chosen -> "What a shame! You only have elected the xxx best. You just achieve xx points out of the possible 40 points” Evaluated will be: Performance: the average amount of points, that is, the average ab

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Questionnaires for psychological description of the sample: 1) Degree of Depression: Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Hautzinger, Kuhner & Keller, 2006) 2) Global severity of symptoms: Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Franke, 2000) 3) Degree of worries: Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ; Stöber, 1995) 4) actual state of anxiety vs. anxiety as a trait: State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Laux, Glanzmann, Schaffner & Spielberger, 1981; 2 scale of 20 items to describe current anxiety and the trait anxiety) 5) crystallized intelligence: Mehrfachwahl-Wortschatz-Intelligenztest (MWT-B; Lehrl, 1977) 6) fluid intelligence: self-made short form of the Standard Progressive Matrices Test consisting of 14 Matrices (SPM; Raven, Raven & Court, 2000) 7) Personality traits: Big Five Inventory Short Version (BFI-S; Gerlitz & Schupp, 2005; 3 items per scale (extraversion, neuroticism, openness to experience, conscientiousness and agreeableness) 8) Performance and motivation: Leistungsmotivationsinventar-Kurzform (LMI-K, Schuler & Prochaska, 2000) 9) acquisition of the endogenous costs of the search and the decision rules within the SPs chosen by the subjects based on 10 self-constructed items (see Seale & Rapoport, 2000) 10) actual emotional state: Emo-16 ( Schmidt-Atzert & Hüppe, 1996) Questionnaires 1-10 will be collected at T1 (at the beginning of the study with 80 subjects) and T2 (about a 3/4 year after T1, or at the end of a short-term therapy with 25 individual sessions for the 40 subjects in the control and experimental group 1).

Countries

Germany

Contacts

Public ContactMartha Sander

Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Abteilung Klinische Psychologie und Psychotherapie

m.sander@uni-mainz.de06131-39-39213

Outcome results

None listed

Source: DRKS (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026