Psicología Política y el debate "Persona vs. Situación": implicancias teóricas, metodológicas y epistemológicas.

The debate "Person vs. Situation" in Psychology has a long history, crosses the entire disciplinary field and remains current. Considering this debate is relevant because it refers to two important questions: a) the nature of the behaviors that need to be explained, and b) the nature of the theories offered to explain them. The methodological designs also affect the results, affecting the weight of personal, situational factors or the interaction between them. In the field of Political Psychology, this debate is of interest because it is raised in relation to different key constructs that explain attitudes towards different political objects and complex behaviors (political participation, discrimination, link with political institutions). Such is the case of the Orientation to Social Dominance (SDO), Right Authoritarianism (RWA) and Causal Attributions. There is a certain consensus that they are not stable provisions of individuals. From this position it is possible to recognize several options regarding what is assumed as "situation"; this makes the scenario of knowledge production even more complex. In turn, the stability over time of the most used measures for these constructs is variable. In some studies, a stability of 15 years is registered, in others of five months and in experimental investigations, there is evidence of variation depending on the manipulation of situational factors of very different levels. In the future, it is important to advance in: a) approximate taxonomies, develop measurement methods and improve the conceptualization of the relevant situational factors; b) establish which personality traits affect which sub-dimensions of the RWA and the SDO and c) know what conditions affect their "stabilization" and how a certain sustainability over time would be conceptually linked to the theories of social / group identity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]