Did they take class into account at all? That could explain some of the results. Or even if they did, and all of these stats have been adjusted for class, carryover from class stereotypes could still explain the results.
There are a zillion factors which haven't been corrected for. As well as class, they include message length, message quality, profile quality, number of messages received on average by each class of respondee, income, education, number of cats owned and whether or not the man's profile consists of a shirtless photo posing in front of his Honda Civic (and I don't know why that mental image came to mind).
I imagine you could, by using fake profiles and fake messages, do a controlled experiment which took all these factors out. My guess would be that you'd still see a vaguely similar effect but that it would be much less pronounced.
Agreed. I think message quality would be highly significant, because black males (not to generalize or anything) are much more likely to use netspeak such as "yo" or "wut" that we learned earlier were response killers. Of course, maybe the reason women don't like these words is because "yo" is a "black" word.
I didn't even think about the money thing, but we do know that women care an awful lot about it. Who knows; a lot of the blatant racism towards black men (i.e. in the self report section) could be because women generalize that black men are poor. It could also explain why everyone seems to want to get with a white dude; he's more likely to be rich/have higher status.