first-born is "dethroned" by the birth of a second child. Unless there are special circumstances, no Other child is likely tO receive the amount Of attention (time' energy, concern) as is the first-born prior tO his dethronement. The first-born is mostlikely to be planned for and wanted, and is likely to be breast-fed for a longer period 0f time (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957 ). But he has inexperienced parents, whO are likely tO be unsure Of themselves and therefore less consistent and more likely tO communicate their anxieties tO the infant. The first-born will tend to learn t0 speak earlier and more precisely (Koch, 1956b ). ln most instances he will be learning to speak before a second child is borm and he will in all probability receive a great deal more verbal stimulation from his parents than will any later-born children, whO must compete for the parents' attention (Lasko, 1954 ). Even this very limited description 0f a few aspects 0f the situation of the first born vis-å-vis later-born siblings suggests that there are likely tO be both favorable and unfavorable consequences of being the first child in the family. Being the center Of love and attention for several years may have very positive consequences; whether they would be entirely negated bY displacement is a moot question. lndeed, it is not entirely clear that the Older child must in- evitably be displaced or dethroned. He will almost certainly have to yield his claim tO first priority for the mother's nurturance when Other infants appean but he may retain a favored role in Other respects. Moreover, the development 0f the first-born and the effects 0f sibling position are not confined tO the first few years. The first-born is likely tO continue to be the child tO whom the parents direct their commentaries on performance, the one at whose level conversation is pitched (Bossard and BOII, 1956 ; Koch, 1954 ). The first-born is likely to serve as a model for later-born siblings. ln general, he will be bigger, stronger, and able tO exert dominance over them, but his use of these attributes on his siblings is alSO likely tO evoke strong negative reactions from his parents. The relationship of ordinal position tO parent-child affectional ties and to the allocation Of authority is not entirely clear. The one study that has examined changing patterns with successive children in the same families suggests that the first-born initially receives slightly greater warmth and affection than does the second-born, that the tendency is reversed at the three- tO six-year age level' but that by age seven or eight there are no consistent differences (Lask0' 1954 ). A number of studies have found that the first-born child is more likely than a middle- or last-born child to feel that a sibling is favored by his parents (Bossard and BOII' 1956 冫 Koch, 1960 ). When parents themselves are questioned, they most often state that no child is favored, but if they d0 acknowledge a favored child, he or she is most Often Oldest or youngest. Similarly, in a study focusing upon a ten- or eleven-year-old child within a sample 0f 300 families, it was found that at this age an only child or a youngest child was most likely to be called bY an affec- tionate name ()n place 0f his given name) while a middle child was least likely t0 be called by an affectionate name (Clausen, 1965 ). There is some consistency to the finding that in a larger family the father tends to play a relatively greater authority role with the oldest child and the Family Structure, Socialization, and Personality 289
There appear tO be several reasons for the excess Of the first-born among persons Of eminence, but perhaps important among these iS earlier achieve- ment in academic pursuits. Studies Of SChOOl achievement found, in general, that the first-born perform more effectively in the classroom than dO later-born children (Douglas, 1964 冫 Elder, 1962 冫 Lees and Stewart, 1957 ). The superior school performance 0 ー the first-born is not evidence Of intelligence superior tO that Of their siblings, however. lt appears rather tO be a resultant Of greater striving tO achieve within the schOOl setting, which, in turn, seems tO derive bOth from the influence Of parental aspirations and pressures and from a number Of personality attributes which slightly incline the first-born toward greater acceptance Of —traits that lead to the labels 口市日ト conventional or adult-approved activities or 池ⅱ日 , CO 〃 sc 池ⅱ日 0 s , s れィ d 池 s , serious, and SO on (McArthur, 1956 ). NOt only do first-born tend to perform more effectively in the classroom but, on the average, they go farther in schOOl than their later-born siblings (ROSSi, 1965 冫 Schachter, 1963 ). Moreover, Rossi found that children of first-born mothers tended tO go significantly farther in school than children 0f later-born mothers. The father's birth order, on the other hand, had relatively little relationship to the child's educational attainment. HaroId Jones' review ( 1933 ) 0f available research relating t0 birth-order differences in intelligence led him tO the conclusion that such statistically sig- nificant differences as had been reported were largely a consequence Of methodo- logical shortcomings in the research (especially the failure tO standardize scores by age). Recent studies Of I. Q. variation as related t0 birth order support his conclusions for children of kindergarten age (Koch, 1954 ) , elementary school children (Schoonover, 1959 ) , and children on the threshold of adolescence (Douglas, 1964 ). There is a tendency for first-born children t0 score slightly higher in tests Of verbal intelligence, especially at younger ages, as would be expected in terms 0f the early advantage the first-born has in learning language from adult models. The later-born child, on the other hand, tends to score slightly higher in tests Of ability t0 make perceptual discriminations. More striking than the effects 0f ordinal position per se, however, is the finding (for two-child families) that boys or girls with a male sibling tend t0 achieve significantly higher test scores than those with a female sibling (Koch' 1954 冫 Schoonover, 1959 ). No adequate explanation has been offered for the apparently greater stimulus value Of a boy. Harris ( 1964 ) has suggested that there is a basic difference in the cognitive styles Of first-born and later-born sons. He characterizes first-born sons as they move toward synthesis, abstraction, and manifesting connectedness determinism and tend tO have an inner focus and inner direction. The later- born sons are seen as manifesting and valuing "disconnectedness"; they tend toward analysis and particularistic, nondeterministic thinking. They are more other-directed. The data presented on behalf of this formulation —drawn un- systematically from literary and scientific sources —are only suggestive, but the formulation appears worthy of further research. Returning to the topic of achievement and eminence, we may note that, although the superior schOOl performances Of the first-born and their greater 292 Development 0 を the lndividual
T 〃 2 Ro 可 Siblings ⅲ Soc 液″ za 石 0 れ An older sibling may be caretaker, teacher, pacesetter, or confidantfor a younger one. The older may (and perhaps almost inevitably does) regard the younger as a rival and may initially express jealousy and hostility but he may also be extremely proud and protective of his younger sibling. A degree of sibling rivalry seems especially likely if the older child is displaced while still highly dependent upon his mother (StendIer, 1954 ). Not only is the displaced child more vulnerable because of his needs, but it is more difficult to give him an understanding Of the advent Of a sibling and make him a participant in this family event. SubsequentIy, on the other hand, siblings closely spaced may be much more closely asgociated in a variety of activities, especially if they are of the same sex (Koch, 1956a ). The child with an older sibling not t00 much his senior will be subject to much more child-level interaction in the first years of life than was his first- born sibling. He will have a less predictable companion, one whose behaviors are more influenced by mood than by internalized norms. Thus, one might anticipate that the younger sibling would acquire greater sensitivity and responsiveness to the moods of other children and would be more comfortable with peers once he has begun t0 move outside the family. Sampson ( 1965 ) has suggested that the early self-concept of the first-born is based very largely on the appraisals re- flected by his parents, while that of later-born children has a large component 0f peer reflections, afforded largely by siblings. lt has also been suggested (Dittes and Capra, 1962 冫 Zimbardo and Formica, 1963 ) that the first-born, confronted by powerful adults, learns to conceal ag- gressive tendencies while the later-born, having a close sibling with whom he can identify as 、 as contend, can more readily express aggression. More- over, parents are likely tO impose constraints on the older, stronger child who aggresses against a younger sibling while they may actually encourage the younger child to stand up for his rights. On the other hand, the older sibling has the possibility offeeling more powerful and competent when he compares himself with a later-born. The literature contains much speculation but little data. There is, however, a rather clear indication that an older sibling can be a helpful model for learning sex-appropriate behaviors. Thus, Brim ( 1958 ) has demonstrated that a boy with an older brother exhibits more masculine be- havior and one With an Older SiSter exhibits more feminine at least at the preschool level. Similar findings, suggesting the persistence of such ten- dencies in later childhood, are reported from a study of fourth-through sixth- grade children, though the pattern appears t0 hold only in two-child families (Rosenberg and Sutton-Smith, 1964 ). lntelligence, ス c ev のれの 1 ら E 川ⅲの 1C2 One Of the most consistent findings relating to birth order is that flrst-born children achieve eminence in higher proportion than do their siblings. As Schachter ( 1963 , p. 757 ) notes in a recent article, . marked s 甲ん ses 可戸トと or れ s ロ ve とれ尾〃 0 ed ⅲ samples 可〃 ro 川ⅲ 2 れ t 川 e 冂 c ロれ川 e れ可比 ers , 可れ司れリれれ尼 rs y 〃 ro 角 S50 , of 2 starred 川 2 れⅲ American Men of Science, 可 2 ogra 〃ん es ⅲ Who's Who, 可 2 ェ - R 0 5 sc 0 and 可のれⅲ 2 れ t 尾 se rch biologists, physicists ロれ d social scientists. Family Structure, Socialization, and Personality 291
mother tends tO be more closely involved (perhaps in b0th affection and authority) with the youngest (Clausen, 1965 冫 A. F. Henry, 195 乙 Sears 可司 . , 1957 ). The Sears study found that mothers tended tO be more demonstrative Of affection with the youngest child, but only in families Of three or more children. One of the most consistent findings with reference to parental behavior toward children Of different ordinal positions relates t0 the use of physical punishment. At any given age level the youngest son or daughter is less likely t0 be spanked or slapped than is a first-born son or daughter Of the same age. This seems to be true for children of five (Sears 可司 . , 1957 ) and for children of ten or eleven (CIausen, 1965 ). Among fifth-grade boys for example, 44 per cent of the last-born had been physically punished within the previous six months, as against 84 per cent Of those wh0 were first-born; among a comparable sample 0f girls the differences ⅲ proportions physically punished were less great ー 43 per cent Of last-born as against 55 per cent Of first-born —but the first-born were much more likely tO have been spanked more than once or twice. Differences in punishment received by first-born and later-born children are much sharper for families of three or more children than for two-child families. There iS evidence that parents become somewhat more consistent in their child-care practices as they gain experience with a second and third child (LaskO, 1954 冫 Stout, 1960 ). A high proportion of parents report themselves more relaxed with later-born children than with their first-born (McArthur, 1956 冫 R. R. Sears, 1950 ). One might expect somewhat greater permissiveness on the part of parents with their later-born children, especially in terms of tolerance of a wider range Of behaviors and less readiness tO invoke harsh measures Of control. lt appears that age Of the parents is alSO a relevant consideration; older mothers Of young children appear t0 be both warmer and more indulgent even with a first- born than are younger mothers (Rosen, 1964 冫 Sears 可司 . , 1957 ). On the other hand, with increasing family size there is, as we have seen, a greater tendency tO impose rules. Moreover, in mediating between children and coping with in- creased pressures, parents are likely tO respond more in terms Of the immediate situation and perhaps less consistently in terms Of abstract principles. There are then countervailing influences which may well cancel each other out. Equally significant influences derive from changing patterns 0f attitude and practice in child rearing, especially in the middle class. The first-born child reared "by the b00k" in the late 1940 ' s , when permissiveness was the order 0f the day, probably experienced a somewhat different regime from that experienced by a first-born reared by the bOOk in the late 1950 ' s , when limit-setting was again being stressed. Such variation associated with social change may well obscure differences in permissiveness associated With sibling order. The differences in parental restrictiveness and control between first-born and later-born children that have been observed in the studies cited above are slight and suggest that family size and Other factors dO, indeed, exert countervailing influences. Parental behavior toward the child is only one aspect Of the socialization experience that is influenced by sibling order and composition. The first-born child has no し within the family group, a child model. His siblings do. 290 Development 0 ー the lndividual
frequency among eminent scientists and men Of letters is a highly consistent finding, it is not at all clear that first-born children strive comparably or excel in Other pursuits. lndeed, studies which have attempted to assess achievement motivation by the use of projective techniques or self-report have shown markedly inconsistent findings (Moore, 1964 冫 Rosen, 1961 冫 Sampson, 1962 ). And there is at least suggestive evidence that outstanding professional athletes are more likely to be later-born than first-born (Chen and Cobb, 1960 ). TO the extent that the superior academic achievement of the first-born serves as a basis for selecting those whO will receive the highest quality Of training in secondary SChOOl ()s in Great Britain S grammar schools) or in influencing who will go to college and graduate school, there will be a larger P001 Of highly educated first-born individuals from whom eminent scientists and scholars will be drawn. One may assume that in small families and among the relatively well-to-do, a high proportion of high-achieving first-borns will be able to realize their educational and occupational aspirations. Among the less well-to-do, however, especially in larger families, the first-born child is likely tO have tO leave school and go to work, since his parents will have several younger children to support and will frequently expect the oldest child to contribute to the family income as early as possible. By the last year of school—when many children have reached working age ー the excess of first-borns in the selective academic schools in Great Britain very largely disappears except for only children (Lees and Stewart, 1957 ). TO sum up, measured intelligence (). Q. ) is not appreciably related to sibling order (though certain dimensions ofintelligence are differentially related). Achievement motivation (striving for excellence) appears to be significantly higher for the first-born primarily within the academic intellectual sphere. Achievement itself is a function Of abilities, motivation, and opportunity; first- born children tend to achieve eminence in scientific and scholarly fields but it is not clear whether they are any more likely tO be high achievers in other fields Of endeavor. REFERENCES Ansbacher, H. L. & Ansbacher, R. R. The ⅲ市ⅲ日リ PSYCh010gy 可 Alfred ハ床 ler. New York: Basic Books, 1956. Bossard, J. H. S. & BOII, E. S. The large 角Ⅲ〃 Y system• Philadelphia: Univ. Pennsylvania Press, 1956. Brim, O. G. , Jr. FamiIy structure and sex role learning by children. Soci0 Ⅲ可Ⅳ , 1958 ′ 2 1 ー 16. Chen, E. & Cobb, S. Family structure in relation t0 health and disease: a review of the literature. /. c ん -0 ル D . ′ 1960 , 12 , 544 ー 567. Clausen, J. A. Research note on family size, sib order and socialization influ- ences. Unpublished paper, 1965. crump, E. p. , Horton, C. p. , Masuoka, J•, & Ryan, D. Growth and develop- ment. I. Relation Of birth weight in Negro infants tO sex, maternal age, parity, prenatal care, and socioeconomic status. /. Pe 市 . , 1957 , 51 , 678 ー 697. Dittes, 1. E. & capra, p. C. Affiliation: comparability or compatibility? ハⅢ -. Psychologi5t, 1962 , 17 , 329. Family Structure, Socialization, and Personality 293
LEARNIN G The anthropologist Ralph Linton once wrote a famous description of the early part 0f a man's day in which he pointed out what culture had invented each Of the articles which the man made use 0f. After using at least three dozen inventions Of ancient and distant cultures during the first half hour of the day, the man was observed to "thank a Hebrew deity in an lnd0-European language that he is 100 per cent American (Linton, 1936 ). While Linton's example was humorous, it does serve t0 point out the importance 0f learning for human beings. Although a11 animals learn, human learning iS cumulative from generation tO genera- tion. The development Of language has made a transmitted culture possible. ln this section we shall 100k at three major research areas within the field oflearning. The first of these is the interaction of heredity and environment. ln the first selection, this topic is approached through the study 0f animal behavior, while in the second we will see how a human being has certain biological limitations on his development 0f a motor 75
The 戸る t s の 7 ・ la れ c difficulties At this point I first became painfully aware of the purely linguistic difficulties arising out Of new viewpoints in medical research. ↑、 ovel concepts require new terms with which t0 describe them. Yet most of us dislike neologisms, perhaps because ー - especially in referring tO clinical syndromes and signs —new names are SO Often proposed merely tO give a semblance of a new discovery. Of course, a new designation, if badly chosen or superfluous, can confuse more than clarify. However, now I clearly needed terms for two things: firs し for the nonspecific syndrome itself, and second, for that which produced it. I could not think of any good name for either. The first 〃し〃 c 日 0 れ 0 れ the stress sy れ日 ro 川 2 My first paper, in which I endeavored to show that the syndrome of stress can be studied independently of all specific changes, happened to come out on American lndependence Day, JuIy 4 , in 1936. lt was published as a brief note of only 74 lines in a single column of the British journal Nature, under the title, "A Syndrome Produced by Diverse Nocuous Agents. ' AIthough in conversation and in lectures I had previously often used the term わ iO ~ og stress, in referring to what caused this syndrome, by the time the first formal paper was published—yielding to violently adverse public opinion —I had temporarily given up this term. There was t00 much criticism of my use of the word stress in reference to bodily reactions, because in everyday English it generally implied nervous strain. I did not want to obscure the real issues by such squabbles over words and hoped that the word 冂 0 贏 0 (especially after being refined to ⅱ OC レ 0 リ s by the British editor) would be considered less obnoxious than S tress. The 尾 e stages ln this same paper I also suggested the name 司Ⅲ - 川尾ロ c 日 0 〃 for the initial response —that is, in the previously mentioned triad—because I thought that this syndrome probably represented the bodily expression of a generalized call to arms of the defensive forces in the organism. But this alarm reaction was evidently not the whole response. My very first experiments showed that upon continued exposure tO any noxious agent capable Of eliciting this alarm reaction (unless it killed immediately), a stage of adaptation or resistance followed. ln Other words, no IiVing organism can maintained continuously in a state Of alarm. If the bOdy is confronted with an agent so damaging that continuous exposure tO it is incompatible with life, then death ensues during the alarm reaction within the first hours or days. Ⅱ survival is possible at all, this alarm reaction is necessarily followed by a second stage, which I called the stage of 尾 s れ c 巳 The manifestations of this second stage were quite different from, and in many instances the exact opposite Of, those which characterized the alarm reac- 238 Emotion
officers attempt tO check on the activities of the first classmen, who are able to break most of the minor regulations with impunity. The first class is given almost complete control over the rest Of the cadet corps. lnformally, certain leading cadets are even called in tO advise the officers on important disciplinary matters. There are one or tWO classes between the first classmen and the swabs, depending on the existence Of a three- or four-year course. These middle classes haze the swabs. Hazing is forbidden by the regulations, but the practice is a hallowed tradition of the Academy. The first class demands that this hazing take place, and, since they have the power to give demerits, all members of the middle classes are compelled to haze the new cadets. AS a consequence Of undergoing this very unpleasant experience together, the swab class develops remarkable unity. For example, if a cadet cannot answer an oral question addressed tO him by his teacher, no other member of his class will answer. All reply, "I can't say, sir," leaving the teacher without a clue to the state of knowledge of this student compared to the rest of the class. This group cohesion persists throughout the Academy period, with first classmen refusing tO give demerits tO their classmates unless an officer directly orders them to do so. The honor system, demanding that offenses by classmates be reported, is not part 0f the Coast Guard Academy tradition. lt seem probable that the honor system, if enforced, would tend to break down the social solidarity which the hazing develops within each class. The basis for interclass solidarity, the development of group feeling on the part Of the entire cadet corps, is not so obvious. lt occurs through informal contacts between the upper classmen and swabs, a type Of fraternization which occurs despite the fact it traditionally is discouraged. The men who haze the swab and order him hazed live in the same wing of the dormitory that he does. Coming from an outside world which disapproves of authoritarian punishment and aggressiveness, they are ashamed of their behavior. They are eager to convince the swab that they are good fellows. They visit his room tO explain why they are being so harsh this week or to tell of a mistake he is making. CIose friendships sometimes arise through such behavior. These friendships must be concealed. One first classman Often ordered his room cleaned by the writer as a punishment," then settled down for an uninterrupted chat. Such informal con- tacts serve tO unite the classes and spread a "we-feeling" through the Academy. ln addition, the knowledge Of common interests and a common destiny serves as a unifying force that binds together all Academy graduates. This is expressed in the identification Of the interest Of the individual with the interest of the Coast Guard. A large appropriation or an increase in the size of the Coast Guard will speed the rate of promotion for all, whether ensign or captain. A winning football team at the Academy may familiarize more civilians with the name Of their common alma mater. GOOd publicity for the Coast Guard raises the status of the Coast Guard officer. The Coast Guard regulars are united in their disdain for the reserves. There are few reserve officers during peacetime, but in wartime the reserve officers soon outnumber the regulars. The reserves do not achieve the higher ranks, but 314 Development 0 ー the lndividual
A review by Harold Jones of research prior to 1932 contained more than 80 references, but few clear-cut generalizations could be made from them. Jones ( 1933 ) noted the disparity both of findings and of theories and interpretations. His analysis of methodological problems and the confounding effects of such factors as size of family, stage of family completion, mother's age at birth of child, varying sex ratios, differential mortality, and changing birthrates provided a potential guide for future research, but few subsequent investigators have so much as shown awareness of these possible effects. Fewer still have attempted to control for them, largely because of the difficulty of securing sizable samples to permit adequate control. Despite methodological deficiencies that lead to many inconclusive findings, however, certain regularities have emerged tO indicate that position within the family does make for a number of predictable —if modest ー differences in child-rearing practices and in child personality when one is dealing with statistical tendencies for large groups of individuals. The great majority of research on the topic has aimed at establishing differences aspect 0f personality or performance which are associated with one or another way of characterizing sibling order. When differences have been found, they are in terms 0f some known or assumed difference in life experience associated with order of birth. A much smaller number Of studies have sought to examine 〃 0 てじ position in the family makes a difference by examining its effects on parental behavior and on the individual's socialization experiences. We shall begin with consideration of effects on the organism, turn next tO the socialization experience, and then briefly review studies 0f outcomes. Effects 0 れ the 〇 rganism The genetic make-up of the individual is not subject to birth-order influences, but the first-born child has a more difficult launching through the birth canal and there appear also to be differences in the intrauterine environment in the course Of successive reproduction. The first-born has, on the average, the smallest birth weight, yet for a11 races studied he is, within one to two years, consistently heavier and taller than are later-born children at the same stage (Crump 可 . , 1957 冫 Lowe and Gibson, 1953 冫 MiIIis and seng, 1954 冫 salber, 1957 ). The smaller size of the first-born is, of course, a desirable attribute in view of the difficulties of initial births. lt appears to be a genuine function of birth order rather than one of the mother's age. Even so, the first-born experiences longer duration 0f labor, greater head compression, and greater likelihood of forceps delivery than do subsequent infants (Wile and Davis, 1941 ). Neonatal mortality tends tO be highest for this group, but it is not clear what the net effect is upon surviving infants. The rapid growth of the first-born appears to be a reflection of his favorable enviornmental situation and the typically intensive nurturance he receives in the early years. But by adulthood, no significant differences remain between eldest and later-born siblings in stature or weight (Howells, 1948 ). Soc 〃 za 日。の Position ⅲ the 川〃 y Every first-born child is for a time an only child, unless there are adopted children or children from another marriage. ln the charac- terization of Alfred Adler (Ansbacher and Ansbacher, 1956 , pp. 376 ー 383 ) , the 288 Development 0 ー the lndividual
D ー尾 t 日 0 The order in which these signs first appeared in Washoe's repertoire is also given in Table 1. we considered the first appearance t0 be the date on which three different observers reported appropriate and spontaneous occurrences. By this criterion, 4 new signs first appeared during the first 7 months' 9 new signs during the next 7 months, and 21 new signs during the next 7 months. We chose the 21st month rather than the 22nd month as the cutoff for this tabulation so that no signs would be included that do not appear in Table 1. ClearlY' if washoe's rate Of acquisition continues tO accelerate' vve Will tO assess vocabulary on the basis Of sampling procedures. We are now in the process Of developing procedures that could be used t0 make periodic tests 0f Washoe's performance on samples Of her repertoire. iS that a chimpanzee can acquire a vocabulary Of more than 30 signs, the exact number Of signs in her current vocabulary is less significant than the order Of magnitude ー 50 , 100 , 200 signs, or more ー that might eventually be achieved. ln TabIe 1 , column 1 , we list EngIish equivalents for each of Washoe's signs. lt must be understood that this equivalence is only approximate, because equival- ence between English and ASL, as between any two human languages, is only approximate, and because Washoe's usage does differ from that 0f standard ASL. TO some extent her usage is indicated in the column labeled "Context" in Table 1 , but the definition of any given sign must always depend upon her tOtal vocabu- lary, and this has been continually changing. When she had very few signs for specific things, Washoe used the "more" sign for a wide class Of requests. Our only restriction was that we discouraged the use Of "more" for first requests. As she acquired signs for specific requests, her use Of declined until, at the time Of this writing, she was using this sign mainly tO ask for repetition Of some action that she could not name, such as a somersault. Perhaps the best English equivalent would be "d0 it again. ” Still, it seemed preferable t0 list the English equivalent for the ASL sign rather than its current referent for Washoe, since further refinements in her usage may be achieved at a later date. The differentiation of the signs for "flower" and "smell" provides a further illustration Of usage depending upon size Of vocabulary. As the "flower" sign became more frequent, we noted that it occurred in several inappropriate con- texts that all seemed t0 include odors; for example, Washoe would make the "flower" sign when opening a tobacco pouch or when entering a kitchen filled with cooking odors. Taking our cue from this, we introduced the "smell" sign by passive shaping and imitative prompting. Gradually Washoe came t0 make the appropriate distinction between "flower ' contexts and contexts in her signing, although "flower" ()n the single-nostril form) (see Table 1 ) has continued tO occur as a common error in contexts. Transfer ln general, when introducing new signs we have used a very specific referent for the initial training —a particular door for "open, a particular hat for "hat. " EarlY in the project we were concerned about the possibility that signs might become inseparable from their first referents. SO far' howeven there has been no problem Teaching Sign Language t0 a Chimpanzee 127