Homemakers were asked what made the work more or less difficult in tasks they named as high and low in cognitive requirements. Most frequently responses for high and low cognitive tasks and for more and less difficult work concerned housing and facilities in the home. The adequacy of equipment and space were noted often as were adequacy of work surface and storage, availability of equipment and supplies, and room arrangement. Each task was rated for complexity, difficulty, and preference. The results suggest that functional design criteria should be put to greater use. The implications for dwelling design are that difficulty factors are a source of annoyance, and minimizing them is important to the productivity and satisfaction of the homemaker.

Difficulty Factors in Homemaking Tasks: Implications for Environmental Design

Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.

https://curve.coventry.ac.uk/open/items/f6535af2-e61b-1567-add0-bbdaddcf3169/1/maclellancomb(2).pdf

'Child' headed households in Rwanda : challenges of definition and livelihood needs

Does psychological distress result from an orderly, comprehensible, and predictable process, or is there unpredictable, incomprehensible randomness to the experience of psychological distress? These are the extreme points of view which bracket the complex question whether a psychological order to the universe exists. Sometimes, asking the right question is the critical endeavor, however, it is critically important not only to ask this grand question but also to answer it correctly as well. The answer to this question matters to psychology in its effort to reduce psychological distress from traumatic events and to law in its effort to assess responsibility for the consequences of wrongful events. The answer is not intuitively obvious and, unfortunately, has been the subject of precious little critical analysis from the lens of law and psychology. Using the question of the existence of a psychological order to the universe to anchor the analysis, this chapter first explores the legal rules that govern proof of causation of psychological harm in personal injury actions and their rationale. It then critically explores alternative models that the courts have applied for proof of psychological harm. Finally, after consideration of the psychological, moral, and economic imperatives served by the requirement of causation, it offers a new perspective for assessing the admissibility of expert evidence providing a causal link between tortious behavior and compensable psychological harm.

Mildred T. Lynch

Papers

The Man in the House