We also hypothesized that, because of the scientific and value-neutral presentation of the Backdoor Vignette, participants would evaluate it as relatively accurate and unbiased. Table 4 shows that, controlling for age, gender, education, race, and implicit racism, acceptance of the three vignettes differed significantly (p < .001). Acceptance was highest (mean of 3.19 on a four-point scale) for the Race-as-Social-Construction Vignette and lowest (2.80) for the Race-as-Genetic-Reality Vignette. Acceptance of the Backdoor Vignette (3.07) did not differ significantly from acceptance of the Social-Construction Vignette but was much higher (p < .001) than acceptance of the Genetic-Reality Vignette. This pattern did not differ significantly by race or by explicit or implicit racism among whites. Viewing participants’ acceptance of the vignette as a measure of the message’s social desirability or acceptability, these results suggest the Backdoor Vignette was viewed as significantly more socially acceptable than the Race-as-Genetic-Reality Vignette. Participants did not identify any similarities in the underlying messages of the Backdoor and Race-as-Social-Construction Vignettes that would cause them to view the Backdoor Vignette as biased, even though the two vignettes produced virtually
