This essay will critically evaluate how aversive racism exists in this day and age through psychological literature. This essay will look into the history of racism first, as it is vital to understand the roots of racism and how aversive racism has become a sub-theme evolving from it. This essay will also critically evaluate the theories of aversive racism and explore the global perspective of aversive racism and its influence on a plethora of subjects, such as society, culture, medicine and law. Nevertheless, it is crucial to understand that race is a social construct solely based on phenotypes, a genetic term used instead of a biological one (Ford & Kelly, 2005). Beutler et al. (1996) argued that the biological construct of race is fictional; the role it has as a social-political and social-psychological is functional.

The definition of racism and aversive racism, according to the American Psychological Association (2015), is how racism is usually composed of emotional responses to a specific group, including believing in a negative predisposition to specific stereotypes. Because racism is a form of prejudice, these assumptions lead to racial discrimination because individuals of a specific racial type can have unique features and be deemed inferior to others. These negative responses can be strong and potentially lead to violence in some cases. This leads to aversive racism as it is a form of racial prejudice which can be seen as a contradiction, as an individual who advocates an egalitarian view. For example, Dovidio et al. (2016) explain how the Civil Rights Movement, which began in the late 1960s, brought to light the racism Black Americans had to endure by White Americans began the disassembling of direct racism, as not only was it immoral and socially unacceptable it was now illegal. These changes resulted in the country achieving historical egalitarian ideals. Despite these substantial changes in society and the shift in social norms, individuals can still harbour negative personal beliefs and views on a specific group (Hall, 2007; Gaertner & Dovidio, 2005). However, when faced with members of a specific racial group, they would have a negative emotional response towards them, most commonly occurring in ambiguous circumstances (American Psychological Association, 2015).

Aronson (1969) brought to light how most measurements in psychology entail measurements of behaviour. It is difficult to measure behaviour in studies as there are a myriad of issues with human behaviour. Such as cognitive dissonance is the theory where an individual's behaviour contradicts their beliefs or thoughts. This creates psychological tension, which affects their behaviour and decision-making skills (Vaidis & Bran, 2019). Heitland and Bohner (2010) conducted a study consisting of 202 German adults with high prejudice concerning Turkish individuals. The results showed that participants with a high preference for consistency were found to have a higher prejudice score. Heitland and Bohner (2010)  also discovered that prejudice was decreased when cognitive dissonance interventions were applied. 
This affliction that cognitive dissonance creates can be associated with the same affliction that aversive racists have. Because of their egalitarian views and values, they desire to be non-prejudiced, so when in social situations, they will not act outside of what is deemed immoral due to the immediate outcasting that can occur (Pearson et al., 2009).




Lourens et. al (2010) found that one way to analyse human behaviour is through conscious expressions comprising intentions, mental states and emotions. But this would need to be conducted automatically and instantaneously by referring to computers, not humans (Berman, 2018). 
This leads to the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Greenwald et al., 1998), which is commonly used to measure specifically implicit beliefs and attitudes that may be unconscious or do not want to report. The IAT compares the association between cognitive representations of various concepts, including genders, age groups and racial groups, with negative or positive wording such as bad/good or unpleasant/pleasant (Schimmack, 2019). Dasgupta and Greenwald (2001) produced two experiments with two aims; the first was to find if exposure to images of disliked and admired exemplars had the potential to decrease preference for White over Black Americans automatically. The second was to find if there was a preference for younger over older individuals. The first experiment began the exposure to either admirable Black individuals and disliked White individuals, admirable White individuals and disliked Black individuals or nonracial exemplars. Within 24 hours, the participants then completed an IAT. The results of these tests led to finding how exposure to admirable Black individuals and disliked White exemplars decreased the automatic pro-White attitudes for 24 hours and did not affect direct racial attitudes. Thus, showing how individuals can have implicit negative attitudes towards minority groups even when they report explicit positive attitudes towards them (Aberson & Ettlin, 2004; Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001).

Aberson and Ettlin (2004) found that when social norms are obvious individuals would then support African Americans over White Americans. However, there have been several experiments and studies where aversive racism has been evident such as through legal proceedings (Pearson et al., 2009). Johnson et. al (1995) found that the effect of inadmissible information was evidently higher when the defendant was Black. This was shown as when the participants were exposed to potentially incriminating evidence, even though it was made clear it was admissible by the courts. This exposure resulted in the perception that the Black defendant was guilty of said crime, not the White defendant. Other studies have replicated these studies to some degree and have found similar results. This then provides further evidence where subtle forms of discrimination such as aversive racism still exists even in institutions which are supposed to not only represent fairness as paramount but uphold it too (Dovidio, Smith, Donnella, & Gaertner, 1997a; Knight, Guiliano, & Sanchez-Ross, 2001). 

Research has shown that physicians' implicit and explicit attitudes about race can affect their interactions with patients, including their diagnoses, treatment recommendations, and overall quality of care (Sabin et al., 2009). Such as how Hoffman et. al (2016) wanted to investigate whether there as a racial bias in healthcare. Specifically if there was a correlation between incorrect beliefs about biological differences between Whites and Blacks such as beleiving that Black indivisuals could endure surgeries with little to no pain (Pernick, 1988). This investigation uncovered how White medical students and residents were less likely to recommend pain medications for Black patients than for White patients, even when the patients had the same symptoms and medical history. The study also found that white medical providers were more likely to rate black patients' pain as lower than white patients' pain, even when the patients reported the same level of pain. 
Chen et. al (2021) have found avesrsive3 racism is still rife in healthcare as it also affects medical srudents, faculty and trainees due to the lack of attention in how aversive rcism has contributed within academic medicine. Specifically, how Asians and other groups Under Represented in Medicine (URM) found it difficult to obtain residencies. One of the reasons Chen et. al (2021) point out is how Teherani et. al (2018) found that URM students received lower grades and were less likely to receive honors or membership in honor societies compared to their non-URM peers, even when they had similar objective performance measures, such as standardized test score. Lower grades and fewer awards can limit opportunities for URM students, making it more difficult for them to secure competitive residency positions and pursue successful careers in medicine. This can contribute to a lack of diversity in the medical field, as URM students are less likely to pursue careers in medicine or to be successful in the field.

In addition to healthcare, aversive racism has been linked to various outcomes, including hiring decisions, educational opportunities, media displays and criminal justice outcomes(Mastro et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2021; Dovidio et al., 2016). For example, Pager et. al (2009) conducted a field experiment in the low-wage labour market of New York City. The participants included Latino, White and Black job applicants matched on demographic aspects and interpersonal skills. The applicants were then provided identical résumés and applied for hundreds of entry-level jobs. The outcomes found that less than half of the Black applicants would receive a callback or job offer. The researchers also discovered that Black and Latino applicants did no better than White applicants just released from prison and if asked were to disclose it was due to possession with intent to distribute specifically cocaine. 




CONCLUSION

Overall, studies suggest that aversive racism may contribute to racial disparities in healthcare outcomes. Even healthcare providers who consciously reject racist beliefs and intentions may unconsciously act in ways that negatively affect the health outcomes of Black patients. This highlights the importance of addressing implicit biases among healthcare providers and developing strategies to reduce the impact of aversive racism on health outcomes.