{PSOCIAL}

Introduction

Contemporary social psychology encompasses a wide range of theoretical and methodological developments shaped by expanding empirical domains, increasing epistemological reflexivity, and renewed attention to the relationship between social realities and the concepts used to explain them. In this context, PSocial seeks to foster a social psychology that expands its analytical domains while strengthening the articulation between conceptual innovation, contextual sensitivity, and methodological rigor. Beyond the consolidation of technical rigor and methodological standardization, recent developments in the field reveal a growing concern with conceptual innovation, contextual sensitivity, and the articulation between individual experience, collective memory, institutional structures, and transnational processes, as well as cross-cultural replicability of constructs and effects. From an editorial perspective, the aim is to encourage integrative, evidence-based, and multi-level approaches capable of linking psychological processes with historically situated social dynamics.

Issue 11(2) of PSocial is situated within this evolving landscape. The contributions included in the regular section and the special dossier collectively reflect a social psychology that moves across analytical levels—from psychosocial risk and epistemological reflection to civic engagement, collective memory, trauma, and transnational identity formation. Rather than presenting isolated empirical findings, the issue brings together research that addresses the interplay between conceptual development, social experience, and structural conditions, illustrating a discipline increasingly concerned with the relationship between psychological processes and the broader contexts in which they emerge.

The regular section brings together five contributions that represent convergent developments in contemporary research. First, it highlights renewed attention to psychosocial risk and developmental contexts through the construction of context-sensitive instruments grounded in ecological and multidimensional perspectives. Second, it addresses epistemological and methodological debates regarding the balance between procedural rigor and theoretical innovation within contemporary social psychology. Third, it advances research on civic engagement, collective memory, and meaning-making processes across different stages of the life course and socio-political contexts. Finally, it examines the role of existential resources and symbolic frameworks in processes of adaptation to traumatic experience.

Complementing these contributions, the special dossier edited by Luis Roniger expands the analytical scope toward transnational processes and social representations of migration. The dossier examines the experiences of Argentine Jewish migrants in Israel through collaborative research conducted by transnational teams, addressing processes of identity reconstruction, technological adaptation, and representations of violence in contexts of relocation. These studies situate individual experience within broader dynamics of collective memory, cultural belonging, and institutional integration, contributing to a growing body of research on transnational mobility and global identity formation.

Taken together, the regular contributions and the special dossier reflect a shared orientation toward a social psychology that is empirically grounded, theoretically reflective, and globally engaged. In this sense, the contributions included here may be read as part of a broader effort to strengthen social psychology’s capacity to address contemporary social transformations through context-sensitive and conceptually informed research.

Measurement, Context, and Psychosocial Risk

A first empirical axis in this issue addresses the persistent gap between ecological theory and measurement practice in psychosocial risk assessment. While contemporary social psychology has embraced contextualized models that conceptualize vulnerability as emerging from dynamic person-environment interactions (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006), instruments capable of operationalizing these frameworks remain scarce—particularly in Latin American contexts where imported measures often exhibit poor construct equivalence.

Escalante et al. (2025) attempts to close this gap through a multifactorial questionnaire that operationalizes Bronfenbrenner’s bioecological theory as a structural design principle rather than rhetorical scaffolding. By explicitly rejecting individual deficit models, the instrument maps six nested ecological levels, from intra and interpersonal to collective level: impulsivity and criminal exposure, family dysfunction, economic insecurity, institutional disconnection, psycho-emotional distress, and violent community environments . Validation with 3,005 Ecuadorian youth demonstrates robust construct stability and criterion validity, establishing that psychosocial risk is relational and structurally embedded rather than purely dispositional. In this way, the metaphorical use of the multilevel ecological model is overcome by operationalizing it with measures from different levels of analysis that test the model.

However, a critical tension remains: the reliance on self-report measures of psychosocial risk poses a challenge for capturing the truly transactional “proximal processes”—the enduring, bidirectional interactions—that define the bio-ecological model’s most mature iteration (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006). The instrument effectively captures ecological contexts (where risk is situated) but cannot fully measure the processes (how risk is co-constituted through interaction). This distinction delimits rather than invalidates the instrument’s theoretical claims, yet it demands a transition from static profiling toward the modeling of developmental cascades across time.

This contribution extends PSocial’s methodological orientation toward measuring how structural conditions configure psychological outcomes. Borro (2021), for instance, demonstrated that domestic labor arrangements reflect macrosystemic gender ideologies rather than individual preferences—an analytical move parallel to Escalante’s treatment of psychosocial risk as structurally constituted. Both studies instantiate measurement strategies that resist decontextualization while acknowledging the empirical challenges of capturing transactional phenomena through cross-sectional designs.

Ultimately, Escalante’s work provides Latin American social psychology with the methodological infrastructure for ecological commitments long professed but rarely operationalized. Whether subsequent research will leverage this foundation to model longitudinal developmental trajectories—or default to cross-sectional risk profiling—will reveal whether the field’s ecological rhetoric can withstand the methodological demands of its own theoretical maturity.

Theoretical Reflection and Epistemic Direction of the Field

Latin American social psychology confronts what Jaume et al. (2025) term a "silent risk": methodological sophistication has advanced substantially while theoretical innovation has progressed less systematically. Their analysis diagnoses "methodological fundamentalism"—a tendency to equate scientific quality primarily with procedural refinement rather than conceptual contribution. This concern resonates with broader debates in psychological science about the relationship between methodological sophistication and theoretical development (Kruglanski, 2001;Muthukrishna & Henrich, 2019), suggesting that the challenge extends beyond regional contexts to implicate the discipline's epistemological priorities more generally. The central provocation is compelling: without sustained attention to theory development, empirical precision may advance even as explanatory power diminishes. At the same time, it is important to highlight the continued relevance of core criteria of scientific quality—such as construct, internal, external, and statistical validity—as well as practices related to replication and the careful testing of small and medium effect sizes (Paez & da Costa, 2026). Strengthening attention to these dimensions can complement the rich conceptual and metatheoretical discussions that characterize much of the region’s scholarship.

The argument develops from a premise warranting careful consideration: methodological rigor, while indispensable for cumulative science, cannot substitute for theoretical development. Regional research has appropriately prioritized the adaptation and validation of measurement instruments—work essential for establishing construct equivalence and enabling cross-cultural comparison. This emphasis reflects legitimate methodological concerns about generalizability from predominantly western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic samples (Henrich et al., 2010) to more diverse populations. Yet when validation becomes the dominant research modality, displacing efforts to develop conceptual frameworks grounded in regional social realities, the field risks what Jaume et al. (2025) characterize as becoming "methodologically competent but conceptually subordinate." The tension between methodological rigor and contextual relevance has been a recurring theme in Latin American psychology. Earlier scholars (Martín-Baró, 1986; Montero, 1991) emphasized the need for theory grounded in regional realities, though often at the expense of methodological systematicity. Contemporary debates, exemplified by Jaume et al. (2025), seek to transcend this apparent trade-off by demonstrating that methodological rigor and theoretical originality are complementary rather than competing commitments when research addresses substantive rather than purely procedural questions. An additional dimension of Martín-Baró’s legacy that deserves renewed attention is his emphasis on systematic quantitative field survey studies. A similar observation can be made regarding the tradition of social representations: while the literature has produced influential qualitative analyses of beliefs and symbolic content, further integration with quantitative studies of attitudes and beliefs—as well as with experimental approaches—could broaden the methodological repertoire of the field. Encouraging dialogue between these traditions may help connect the metatheoretical richness of the literature with empirically testable middle-range theories that support cumulative development in social psychology.

Jaume et al.'s (2025) analysis opens crucial questions about the structural conditions shaping research practice. Is methodological conservatism primarily an intellectual orientation, or does it reflect rational adaptation to institutional constraints? In resource-limited academic environments, where funding favors demonstrable technical competence, where evaluation systems reward publications in established outlets with specific methodological preferences, and where international collaboration often positions regional scholars as data collectors rather than theoretical contributors, methodological conformity may function as strategic response rather than mere preference. Understanding these dynamics requires examining how funding architectures, publication ecosystems, and evaluation criteria interact to shape what research becomes feasible and valued.

The authors' call for "theoretical imagination" and "methodological pluralism" raises important implementation questions for the field. What institutional conditions would enable scholars to undertake theoretically ambitious work that addresses regional social phenomena—inequality, institutional instability, collective violence—while maintaining the empirical rigor necessary for international contribution? How might graduate training be structured to cultivate both technical sophistication and conceptual creativity? What role might regional journals play in establishing publication standards that reward theoretical originality alongside methodological quality? These questions represent a research agenda extending beyond any single article, requiring collective engagement across the discipline.

PSocial's editorial position responds to this challenge by positioning the journal against methodological fundamentalism while maintaining commitment to empirical rigor. Crucially, this represents neither a rejection of methodological standards nor an embrace of epistemological relativism. Rather, it articulates a commitment to research where technical sophistication serves theoretically substantive questions emerging from Latin American social contexts. The goal is not a less rigorous method but differently directed method—empirical precision in service of explanatory depth rather than procedural conformity as an end in itself. This orientation requires distinguishing between theoretical innovation grounded in rigorous method and methodological sophistication disconnected from substantive problems. The former advances cumulative knowledge; the latter risks producing technically proficient yet conceptually limited contributions. This implies developing models that are cumulative, take into account previously developed families of theories, as well as the effects that have been tested and can be replicated. Creativity does not mean total innovation nor the citation of great scientific icons. Focusing solely on degrees of freedom is as harmful as taking an encyclopedic tour from Wittgenstein to Foucault.

Jaume et al.'s (2025) analysis thus articulates a vision requiring implementation through multiple channels: funding mechanisms that enable intellectual risk-taking, training programs balancing technical competence with conceptual development, publication cultures recognizing diverse forms of contribution, and international collaborations structured as genuine partnerships rather than asymmetric relationships. The field's progress will be measured not by rhetoric about autonomy but by the emergence of research that treats Latin American realities as generative contexts for theoretical development—work that contributes to global social psychology through insights that could emerge only from sustained engagement with regional phenomena. This represents both opportunity and obligation: to demonstrate that methodological rigor and theoretical originality are not competing priorities but mutually reinforcing commitments in the advancement of psychological science. As Kruglanski (2001) argued at the turn of the millennium, the field's vitality depends on sustaining "that vision thing"—the capacity to generate explanatory frameworks that transcend procedural accomplishment. Two decades later, this challenge remains urgent, requiring both global and regional psychology to prioritize substantive understanding alongside technical precision.

Collective Meaning, Historical Memory, and Civic Life

Social psychology has progressively moved beyond individualistic models of psychological functioning toward frameworks that recognize how collective representations, shared histories, and civic structures shape identity, resilience, and social participation. This orientation reflects a broader theoretical commitment to understanding psychological processes as embedded within symbolic systems that transcend individual experience—systems through which communities construct meaning, negotiate belonging, and transmit values across generations (Jost et al., 2004; Moscovici, 1988).

Three contributions in this issue exemplify this perspective by examining how collective frameworks structure psychological experience across distinct domains: civic engagement in later life, collective memory of national trauma, and existential meaning-making following war. While methodologically diverse, these studies share a common analytical orientation—they situate individual experience within shared symbolic contexts and demonstrate how psychological processes emerge from the interplay between personal biography and collective narrative.

Caro Puga and Martínez Gusmán (2025) challenge deficit-oriented models of aging by identifying heterogeneous configurations of civic engagement among older adults in Chile. Through latent profile analysis, they demonstrate that civic participation in later life reflects not diminished capacity but differentiated pathways shaped by life-course trajectories, institutional opportunity structures, and generational experiences of political socialization. Their identification of four distinct profiles—ranging from "civically disconnected" to "civic agent"—illustrates how citizenship constitutes a developmental process rather than a static attribute, requiring attention to both individual dispositions and structural conditions that enable or constrain participation. This work advances research on aging and citizenship by positioning older adults not as beneficiaries of social policy but as active agents in democratic life, whose engagement reflects accumulated experience and persistent inequality in access to civic resources.

Questions of collective frameworks and identity construction are further developed through two complementary studies addressing the symbolic legacy of the Malvinas War. Sosa (2025) examines structural dissonance in collective memory between civilian and military populations, revealing how divergent social representations of the same historical event reflect competing identity narratives and group-specific meaning systems. Civilians frame the war through depersonalized political critique—injustice, dictatorship, unnecessary loss—while military respondents construct nationalist narratives centered on heroism, sacrifice, and specific combat figures like Lieutenant Roberto Estévez. This divergence demonstrates that collective memory functions not as shared recollection but as identity work: each group selectively remembers in ways that maintain group coherence and legitimize present-day positions. The study thus validates core premises of social representations theory—that ostensibly shared "facts" are differentially appropriated through frameworks that serve distinct social functions. As Halbwachs asserted, there are as many collective memories as there are significant groups that remember, and these groups remember based on their needs and positions. The need to maintain a heroic memory for the military versus that of making sense of a political-military failure for civilians not committed to the dictatorship.

Yaccarini (2025) extends this analysis by examining purpose in life as a protective factor mediating responses to war trauma among veterans. Where Sosa demonstrates how groups construct divergent collective meanings of war, Yaccarini shows how individuals internalize historical events into personal identity projects that buffer against posttraumatic stress. Higher purpose—operationalized as coherent life direction and meaningful goal pursuit—associates with reduced PTSD symptom severity and better psychosocial functioning. Yet purpose itself is not purely individual; it emerges through processes of meaning-making that draw on collective narratives, institutional recognition, and cultural frameworks that validate or delegitimize veterans' experiences. The finding that purpose functions protectively thus raises questions about structural conditions: under what circumstances do societies provide veterans with symbolic resources that enable existential reconstruction? When do dominant narratives—like civilian framings of the war as unjust—complicate rather than facilitate veterans' meaning-making?

Taken together, these contributions illuminate three interrelated dynamics. First, psychological processes—civic engagement, collective memory, existential meaning—are fundamentally relational, emerging through interaction between individuals and shared symbolic systems. Second, these processes exhibit systematic variation across social positions; what constitutes engagement, memory, or purpose differs by generation, institutional affiliation, and historical experience. Third, psychological outcomes cannot be understood independently of the collective frameworks that structure their possibility—civic agency requires institutional access; collective memory reflects identity projects; existential meaning depends on symbolic validation.

Yet important questions remain underspecified. How do generational differences in political socialization (evident in Caro's cohort analysis) intersect with differential exposure to collective narratives (documented by Sosa) to shape civic participation across the life course? Do veterans with stronger nationalist memory frames (Sosa's military sample) develop different purpose configurations (Yaccarini's construct) than those who adopt critical framings? More fundamentally, what institutional conditions enable the alignment between individual meaning-making and collective narratives necessary for both psychological flourishing and democratic vitality? These questions represent research opportunities extending beyond any single study, requiring sustained attention to the bidirectional relationships between psychological processes and shared symbolic structures.

PSocial's editorial commitment reflects this orientation: social psychology must examine not only individual-level processes but also the collective frameworks through which meaning, identity, and participation become possible. This requires methodological pluralism capable of capturing both individual variation (latent profile analysis) and shared structures (social representations), alongside theoretical frameworks that refuse reductionism—whether psychological processes collapsed into individual traits or social structures treated as external constraints. The contributions in this section model this integrative approach, demonstrating the discipline's capacity to address phenomena of public relevance while maintaining empirical rigor. Whether Latin American social psychology can sustain this balance—theoretically ambitious research on contextually grounded problems, analyzed through internationally recognized methods—will determine not only the field's intellectual vitality but its capacity to contribute substantively to understanding the region's distinctive social realities.

Transnational Collaboration and Migration Research

This issue concludes with a special dossier that exemplifies an emerging model of international knowledge production. Guest-edited by Luis Roniger, the collection originates from an innovative pedagogical collaboration between Universidad de Buenos Aires and Tel Aviv University, in which transnational student research teams examined social representations of migration among Argentine Jews relocating to Israel. Beyond its substantive contributions, the dossier's significance lies in demonstrating how collaborative transnational research design can advance both methodological rigor and conceptual depth in migration studies.

The three empirical studies—addressing pre-migration imaginaries and identity transformation (Basewicz Rojana et al., 2025), technological mediation of adaptation (Gambino et al., 2025), and divergent representations of violence (Lev et al., 2025)—collectively position migration as fundamentally a social-psychological process rather than merely demographic phenomenon. Drawing on social representations theory (Moscovici, 1988), the dossier demonstrates how collective meaning systems mediate adaptation, identity transformation, and social integration. Migrants do not simply encounter new environments; they actively construct them through shared interpretive frameworks that draw on pre-existing categories while accommodating novel experiences. As Roniger (2025) elaborates in his introduction, this perspective foregrounds processes of representation, memory reconstruction, and categorical anchoring that quantitative migration studies typically overlook.

Methodologically, the dossier advances several principles for transnational research. Collaborative team design pairing researchers across migration contexts enables comparative insight unavailable to single-site studies. Qualitative depth through semi-structured interviews surfaces the interpretive categories and meaning attributions that structure migrant experience. Explicit attention to emic/etic distinctions foregrounds how migrants' lived categories may diverge systematically from researchers' analytic frameworks or international comparative metrics—a gap Roniger identifies as particularly evident in security perceptions, where migrants' sense of safety operates independently of objective violence indicators.

Yet questions remain about generalizability and scope conditions. The focus on educated, Jewish Argentine migrants to Israel—a population characterized by religious-ethnic continuity, prior Hebrew exposure, and Law of Return citizenship entitlement—represents a distinctive case within global migration flows. How do processes of symbolic reconstruction documented here extend to migrants crossing greater cultural distances, lacking institutional support structures, or navigating unauthorized status? Do interpretive frameworks shaped by ethnic-religious continuity generalize to contexts where migrants confront more fundamental categorical ruptures? These questions do not diminish the dossier's contributions but situate them as foundation for broader comparative research on migration and meaning-making across diverse transnational corridors.

For PSocial, the dossier represents programmatic commitment to international collaboration, pedagogical innovation, and theoretically grounded empirical research. The UBA-TAU partnership models how transnational academic networks can generate substantive knowledge while training emerging scholars in collaborative research practice. By publishing this collection alongside contributions examining collective memory (Sosa, 2025), civic engagement (Caro & Martínez, 2025), and theoretical development (Jaume et al., 2025), the issue demonstrates social psychology's capacity to address phenomena across scales—from individual meaning-making to transnational processes—while maintaining conceptual coherence. Whether Latin American social psychology can sustain such programmatic integration—balancing local relevance with international dialogue, methodological pluralism with empirical rigor—will determine the field's trajectory toward both regional significance and global contribution.

Programmatic Discussion and Conclusions

The contributions assembled in this issue collectively address a pivotal challenge in contemporary psychology: the integration of insights from traditional research hubs with those from historically underrepresented scientific landscapes. These studies demonstrate that research conducted in diverse socio-cultural contexts provides more than just novel empirical data; it offers the analytical scaffolding necessary to re-evaluate the universality and circulation of psychological knowledge. The coherence observed across these works—spanning ecological risk to civic engagement—highlights a fundamental tension regarding the cross-cultural robustness of current models, suggesting that the maturation of the discipline requires a thematic expansion that transcends mere methodological refinement.

A central set of tensions further clarifies the analytical terrain addressed in this issue. The first concerns the relationship between structural conditions and individual agency. Escalante’s (2025) bioecological instrument operationalizes multiple ecological levels with considerable precision, yet it cannot directly capture the proximal processes through which risk is dynamically constituted in everyday interactions. At a different level of analysis, Jaume et al. (2025) identify a growing emphasis on methodological standardization while noting that institutional incentives—such as funding priorities, evaluation criteria, and publication norms—often discourage theoretically ambitious research. On the other hand, it is important to remark that the social psychology associations with the largest memberships in Brazil and Mexico, as well as a good part of the social psychologists from other countries such as Colombia and Chile, emphasize the metatheoretical and qualitative approaches even today. Therefore, the incentives toward mainstream methodological rigor are more of a straw dog than a reality in much of Latin America.

The resulting challenge is therefore not simply whether researchers should pursue conceptual innovation, but how institutional environments might better support sustained theoretical development. Relatedly, Caro and Martínez’s (2025) analysis of civic engagement illustrates how participation is shaped by differentiated structural opportunities. In a comparable way, the production of knowledge itself unfolds within structured academic contexts that condition the range of viable research strategies. From this perspective, disciplinary progress depends not only on individual initiative but also on the institutional arrangements that enable or constrain particular forms of inquiry.

Second, the relation between local specificity and generalizable knowledge. The migration dossier exemplifies how regionally grounded research illuminates phenomena inaccessible to studies assuming default populations. Yet the dossier's focus on educated, Jewish Argentine migrants with citizenship entitlement raises the generalizability question the authors themselves would pose: Do these processes extend to Central American migrants crossing the Darién Gap, Haitian migrants navigating racialization in Santiago, Venezuelan migrants confronting precarious status across the region? Theoretical claims require specification of scope conditions through systematic comparative design. Sosa's (2025) demonstration that collective memory diverges systematically across civilian and military populations models this comparative logic within a single national context; extending it transnationally constitutes the next disciplinary frontier.

Third, the relation between individual meaning-making and collective frameworks. Yaccarini's (2025) finding that purpose in life buffers war trauma raises questions the study cannot itself answer: Under what conditions do societies provide veterans with symbolic resources enabling existential reconstruction? When do dominant narratives—like civilian framings of the Malvinas War as unjust loss—complicate rather than facilitate meaning-making? These questions require moving between analytical levels, from individual purpose to collective memory to institutional recognition to policy outcomes. The studies here avoid reductionism in either direction, yet their very success demonstrates that the most interesting questions inhabit the space between levels—questions requiring sustained movement across analytic registers.

These tensions are not weaknesses to be overcome but productive contradictions defining intellectually ambitious social psychology. They specify what conceptual innovation entails concretely: not abandoning methodological standards but directing them toward phenomena those standards cannot adequately explain; not rejecting global disciplinary conversations but entering them with positioned knowledge capable of transforming their terms; not choosing between individual and collective levels but specifying the mechanisms through which they mutually constitute one another.

For PSocial, this issue represents a critical inflection point in its strategic evolution. While the journal has consolidated its standing as a foundational regional cornerstone, its current trajectory is defined by a commitment to multifaceted internationalization. This vision transcends conventional geographical boundaries, seeking to foster a reciprocal epistemic dialogue that integrates contributions from established research hubs in North America and Europe with emerging scientific perspectives from across the globe. By positioning itself as a node for transnational discourse, PSocial aims to dissolve the artificial dichotomy between 'regional' and 'universal' science, ensuring that the insights generated within these pages resonate across diverse institutional and geopolitical latitudes.

The issue thus concludes not with a declaration of finality, but with a rigorous specification of the conditions that progress requires. Emerging scientific perspectives—exemplified by, but not limited to, Latin American social psychology—offer a wealth of distinctive empirical materials: legacies of political violence, democratic transitions, persistent structural inequalities, and transnational mobility under conditions of asymmetry. These contexts generate phenomena that remain inadequately explained by theoretical frameworks developed in more stable or affluent settings. Translating this empirical density into a robust theoretical contribution requires more than individual ingenuity; it demands an institutional paradigm shift that enables sustained engagement with conceptually ambitious and high-risk research.

Whether the field can sustain such a transformation will determine more than PSocial’s indexation metrics. It will determine whether emerging scientific perspectives can contribute substantively to a globalized disciplinary canon or remain, as Jaume et al. (2025) caution, "methodologically competent but conceptually subordinate"—in essence, a competent echo of distant theories. The contributions in this issue suggest that a path toward theoretical agency is not only possible but necessary. The conditions enabling its pursuit remain the unfinished work that this collection both documents and demands.

Editorial Note: Journal Developments

This issue marks a transition in the editorial leadership of PSocial and reflects the journal’s ongoing efforts to strengthen its editorial governance, publication standards, and international positioning within global scholarly communication. With the publication of Volume 11(2), the tenure of Darío Páez as Editor-in-Chief (2023–2025) formally concludes. During this period, the journal implemented substantial improvements in editorial processes, international collaboration, and institutional development aimed at enhancing quality assurance and research visibility.

A key achievement of this term was the consolidation of international participation through the incorporation of leading scholars as guest editors of thematic dossiers, including Elza Maria Techio, José Ignacio Ruiz-Pérez, Wilson López López, and Joe de Rivera. These collaborations contributed to expanding the journal’s international authorship networks, strengthening peer-review practices, and increasing the journal’s engagement with global research agendas.

An additional institutional milestone was the formal implementation of Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) across journals of the Universidad de Buenos Aires. The PSocial editorial team actively collaborated with university authorities in this process, contributing to improvements in article traceability, citation indexing, and interoperability within international bibliographic databases.

Beginning with Volume 12(1), Wilson López López (Pontificia Universidad Javeriana, Colombia) will assume the role of Editor-in-Chief for the 2026–2028 term. His appointment reflects the journal’s commitment to editorial renewal, internationalization, and disciplinary diversity. López López previously served as guest editor of a special issue in 2024 and subsequently joined the International Scientific Board, consistent with PSocial’s policy of integrating guest editors into its governance structure to ensure continuity and transparency in editorial decision-making.

Darío Páez will continue contributing to the journal as Associate Editor, together with Gastón Becerra and Hugo Simkin, supporting continuity in editorial oversight and strategic development. The journal maintains its policy of inviting internationally recognized scholars to edit thematic dossiers and subsequently incorporating them into the International Scientific Board as part of its long-term strategy to strengthen editorial expertise, diversify perspectives, and enhance scientific impact.

Through these developments, PSocial reaffirms its commitment to rigorous peer review, transparent editorial practices, international collaboration, and the continuous improvement of publication standards in alignment with the criteria of major indexing systems.

References

Basewicz Rojana, I. F., Banon, A., & Maron, T. (2025). Imagining Israel: Social representations among Argentine Jews. Psocial, 11(2), e8. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11159

Borro, D. L. (2021). Links among Ambivalent sexism, Gender Role Ideology and domestic and care work in Argentinian households. Psocial, 7(1), 5-15.

Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. En W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (6th ed., pp. 793–828). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114

Caro Puga, V., & Martínez Guzmán, M. L. (2025). Compromiso cívico de personas mayores en Chile: Un análisis de perfiles latentes. PSocial, 11(2), e4. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11156

Escalante, J., Torres Hernandéz, E & Hidalgo Anangono, L.G (2025). Construcción y Validación del Cuestionario Multifactorial de Riesgo Psicosocial en jóvenes: enfoque bioecológico. PSocial, 11(2), e2. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11154

Gambino, B., Gerstein, A., & Ghasemisarukolai, M. (2025). Navigating the digital aliyah: Social representations of technology among Argentine immigrants in Israel. Psocial, 11(2), e9. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.10989

Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. (2010). The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2–3), 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X

Jaume, L. C., Biglieri, J. A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2025). Methods without ideas: The silent risk of contemporary Latin American social psychology. PSocial, 11(2), e3. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11155

Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25(6), 881–919. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00402.x

Kruglanski, A. W. (2001). That "vision thing": The state of theory in social and personality psychology at the edge of the new millennium. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 871–875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.871

Lev, H., Lotan, O., & Martin, R. (2025). Social representations of violence among Argentinian immigrants to Israel. Psocial, 11(2), e10. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11160

Martín-Baró, I. (1983). Acción e ideología: Psicología social desde Centroamérica. UCA Editores.

Martín-Baró, I. (1986). Hacia una psicología de la liberación. Boletín de Psicología, 22, 219–231.

Montero, M. (1991). Una orientación para la psicología política en América Latina. Psicología Política, 3, 27–44.

Montero, M. (Ed.). (1987). Psicología política latinoamericana. Editorial Panapo.

Moscovici, S. (1988). Notes towards a description of social representations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18(3), 211–250. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420180303

Muthukrishna, M., & Henrich, J. (2019). A problem in theory. Nature Human Behaviour, 3(3), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0522-1

Paez, D. & da Costa, S. (2026) De una psicología social basada en la novedad y reputación a una acumulativa basada en la evidencia. Castalia, Revista de Psicología de la Academia, (45), 157-189. https://doi.org/10.25074/07198051.45.3135

Roninger, L. (2025). The social representations of migrants as studied by transnational teams. Psocial, 11(2), e7. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11158

Sosa, F. (2025). Dissonance in the collective memory of the Malvinas War: A comparative study of the structural approach in civilian and military populations. PSocial, 11(2), e5. https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11157

Yaccarini, C. (2025). Purpose in life as a protective factor against trauma: Empirical evidence in war veterans. PSocial, 11(2), e-6 https://doi.org/10.62174/psocial.11131

Información adicional

redalyc-journal-id: 6723