ABSTRACT
H idden beneath the relatively sm ooth surface o f the last tw o chapters,
there still lurks an aw kw ard and potentially dangerous finding.
T hough boys show few inhibitions in reproducing the stereotyped
view o f their ow n academic group, they seem unw illing - as was
Professor W atson - to take the logical step, and apply these stereo-
types directly to themselves. O f the th irty figures included in the original Semantic Differential, one was Self. In response, boys produced
no t the profile o f their ow n speciality, bu t a catalogue o f pure virtue.
For arts and science boys alike, the resemblance betw een Self and that
com posite paragon G ood M ale was exceedingly close. Irrespective o f their subject, all boys claimed to be w arm , im aginative, exciting, manly, dependable, intelligent and valuable. In the cases o f depend-
