In group decision settings, differences in how individuals represent problems may produce barriers to reaching consensus because the wayan individual represents a problem may in large part determine the solutions or decision alternatives one considers (Newell and Simon 1972; see also Voss, Purkitt, and Breuning, all in this volume). Examples of this can be found in highlevel government group decision-making units. A classic example is from the executive committee during the Cuban missile crisis.

Other examples on which this chapter focuses can be found in Senate Judiciary Committee decision making in controversial Supreme Court justice nomination hearings. These nominations are characterized by significant differences in individual problem representations at the hearing and lack of consensus in whether to support the nomination. Although this decision context differs in content from others discussed in this volume (i.e., it does not concern foreign policy), it does not differ significantly from these and other aspects of decision making that may be observed in more international domains. In this chapter, the process of the Senate Judiciary Committee's decision making in controversial Supreme Court justice nomination hearings is analyzed from a problem-solving perspective to illustrate how this perspective provides a framework for understanding decision making and how its processes relate to decision outcome and political strategies employed.

Before beginning the specific analysis of decision making in controversial Supreme Court justice nomination hearings, a brief review of various aspects of problem solving in general is undertaken.

Problem Solving

When solving a problem, one first determines a problem space (Simon 1978). Knowledge that is relevant to solving the problem, as well as goals of the problem and imposed constraints, is included in the problem space. For example, the goal in solving a crossword puzzle is to fill in all the blanks with words that correspond to the given clues.