36 male and 24 female college students were shown slides of a hairy arm, an arm wirhout hair, a hairy chest, a chest wirhout hair, a large penis and a small penis. They were asked to rate the slides on various adjective scales. The hairy arm and, to some degree, the hairy chest were rated as more potent and more active than their hairless counterparts and the large penis was rated as more potent than the small penis. These results were replicated for a smaller group.During adolescence the young male reaches his sexual maturity. Some physical signs of this maturity are the growth of his genitals, both penis and testes, and the appearance of facial and body hair. A failure to develop these physical signs of adulthood is hypothesized to have a most detrimental effect on the adolescent personality (Ausubel, 1954; Jersild, 1957). The presence or absence of these sexual characteristics is hypothesized to have its effect on the individual's self concept, mediated primarily though his peers' reactions to him and his acceptance of the cultural norms of sexual adulthood. N o empirical literature, however, is cited to support the notion that failure to develop these sexual characteristics causes an individual to be looked down upon by his peers or more specifically that the individual with a hairy chest or a large penis is regarded differently than his hairless or less well-endowed counterpart. The present study attempts to provide some quantitative basis for these common assumptions.Berg (1751) has stated that hair on the arms, legs, and chest is a symbol of masculinity and virility and that the hairier the man, the more masculine he is, and Clark (1968) has illustrated the detrimental effect lack of body hair has on some individuals. Texts on adolescence (i.e., Ausubel, 1754) support the notion that the adolescents with more body hair are likely to be considered more masculine and mature than their relatively hairless peers. Considering Osgood's three main dimensions of meaning (Osgood, Suci, & Tannenbaum, 1957), the Evaluative, the Potency, and the Activity, it is safe to hypothesize that a hairy arm (or hairy chest) will be rated as more potent than a hairless arm (or hairless chest). Wich regard to the evaluative dimension, no predictions can be made because of the wide range of individual preferences. No predictions were made conterning the activity dimension; the literature does not suggest male-female differences in attitudes toward hairiness. Hypothesis 1A: The more hair on a body part (arm, chest), the more potent the part will be considered.