A case history of the application of social judgment theory to policy formulation

Social judgment theory provides (1) a theoretical framework for understanding the origin of policy quarrels and (2) methods for their resolution. Social judgment theory asserts that differences in policy are often cognitive in origin. Such cognitive differences are produced by the highly interdependent aspects of the more or less unreliable environments within which policies are made. Discussion alone is often insufficient for resolving policy differences because the covert, inconsistent nature of human judgment prevents individuals from accurately describing their cognitive processes. Consequently, judgmental aids, such as computer graphics technology and input-output analysis, are necessary in order to externalize and thus to clarify the causes of disagreement. Social judgment theory, computer graphics technology, and input-output analysis were successfully employed both in formulating an agency-wide policy as well as specifying how this policy would be implemented. Empirical support for the theoretical position was thus obtained.     

Women leadership in Oxford House: examining their strengths and challenges

This study examined the perspectives and definition of leadership by women and mothers with children (n = 40) affiliated with Oxford Houses, a communal mutual-help recovery setting. Participants were asked questions relating to their experiences living in an Oxford House including the strengths and challenges encountered and how leadership impacted the stability in their house. Results illustrated the value of female leadership and highlighted the characteristics deemed important for women leaders in Oxford House, as well as some differences between these women's perception of leadership and the standard definition of leadership. The implications of the findings and how they may be useful to women's and mothers' with children houses are discussed.     

THE FAILURE OF COMPETITIVE ENTRY INTO FIXED-LINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: WHO IS AT FAULT?

Between 1998 and 2003, dozens of companies entered newly liberalizedtelecommunications markets in OECD countries. In Europe andNorth America, most of the entrants that attempted to use incumbents'"unbundled local loops," at regulated wholesale prices, to offernarrowband services—essentially "plain old telephone service"—havefailed. Even though Europe, the United States and Canada liberalizedat different times and with somewhat different policies, excessiveentry occurred in each region with too many players chasingan illusive pot of revenue with poorly designed business plans.On the other hand, the use of unbundled or shared local loopsfor entry into broadband services may be more of a winning strategybecause it allows the entrant to compete for customers by offeringnew services. This appears to be the emerging broadband strategyin Europe of large ISPs owned by incumbent telecommunicationcompanies in other countries (for example, France Telecom'sWanadoo) and in Japan. However, such entry has not worked inthe United States, where new companies, such as Covad, havefailed to develop profitable operations.