Using the understanding of authoritarianism as a personality trait as a starting point, (Etchezahar, Cervone, Biglieri, Quattrocchi & Prado-Gascó, 2011), and from the analysis carried out by Milgram, a person with authoritarian personality will be more likely to obey than the "non-authoritarian" (Milgram, 1974). Now, if the personality is built through processes of subjectivity (Berger & Luckman, 1968), each culture has its own methods and contents (Mussen, 2000), and bearing in mind that the process of socialization lasts for a lifetime (Simkin & Becerra, 2003), a migrant immersed in another culture will be faced with the new culture and institutions.the understanding of authoritarianism as a personality trait as a starting point, (Etchezahar, Cervone, Biglieri, Quattrocchi & Prado-Gascó, 2011), and from the analysis carried out by Milgram, a person with authoritarian personality will be more likely to obey than the "non-authoritarian" (Milgram, 1974). Now, if the personality is built through processes of subjectivity (Berger & Luckman, 1968), each culture has its own methods and contents (Mussen, 2000), and bearing in mind that the process of socialization lasts for a lifetime (Simkin & Becerra, 2003), a migrant immersed in another culture will be faced with the new culture and institutions.

Foucault (1975) proposes a sociological explanation of obedience. This author starts from understanding that power is decentralized and not necessarily embodied in a person, while we are in a society in which we feel that we are constantly monitored and followed, producing in us the following of norms and laws. The feeling that we are supervised, of fear of being caught for deviating from the norm, and therefore being punished for it, would lead to compliance with the laws. Precisely, we understand that this trend is reinforced by the warlike cultures of the 21st century. Operating through psychosocial mechanisms, based on the fear of the creation of the figure of a "threatening other" (Palestinians), defined ontologically from their "possible acts", with a great moral burden, "intolerant for society" (Bonavena & Nievas, 2012). The social function of these mechanisms is to increase the control of the authority given the “exceptional situation” (Schmitt, 2009), as well as the social legitimation for any offensive action that guarantees “security” (Nievas, 2015). It would not only be the internalization of a behavior, but also of a need.

In the Israeli case, the “other” as a threat cannot be understood only from the materiality and objectivity of any war where conflict and threat are part of the past and present of society. It is also not only explained, in a Gramscian sense (Gramsci, 2013), as a product of subjective political intentions with material consequences, but also, as a combination of both factors. In this sense, following this reasoning, it can be concluded that in different circumstances the authoritarian and obedient personality is fostered, while in the face of increasing uncertainty the subject displaces his critical consciousness and replaces it with authority. As a psychological mechanism of tranquility, it gives up its responsibility (Santos, 2003), while “the dying condition” (Milgram, 1974) submits to the (Hobbesian) State, and disregards politics. In this sense, there are many studies that show the negative correlation between "Authoritarianism" and "Interest in politics" (Etchezahar, Cervone, Biglieri, Quattrocchi & Prado-Gascó, 2011). From this "symbolic remoteness" that occurs with respect to the "intolerant enemy", it follows that the subjects will obey the State, and even more if said authority is physically close (Santos, 2003). Illustrative of this is compulsory military service, or the naturalization of the Armed Forces in civil life. For the present investigation we need to start from the hypothesis that "anyone can do evil" (Arendt, 1963; Milgram, 1974), or in this case, “anyone could legitimize evil” based on reasons of obedience (Wagon, 2019), although we do not want to fall into the notion of a "bureaucratic subject" (Canto Órtiz & Álvaro 2015), nor nullify the possibility of social change and "disobedience" (Santos, 2003). A government not only acts by its own characteristics, but because it is the result of social relations, and in this case, of subjective subjects with a certain ideology. In this sense, Trotsky's (2013) comment when he refers to the causes of Hitler's rise to power seems illustrative. This author understands that although not all "exasperated petty bourgeois" could have become Hitler (highlighting his particular personality), in each "exasperated petty bourgeois" there was a particle of Hitler (his rise and legitimacy are explained as a product of social relations of specific histories that are condensed in the historical need on the part of the population of "a Hitler").

From what has been said, the relationship that we hope to find between obedience and Social dominance, is reflected in various theoretical antecedents (Kandler, Bell & Riemann, 2016; Etchezahar, Ungaretti, Prado Gaseó & Brusino, 2016; Duckitt, 2006; Whitley, 1999). The latter, is understood as the degree of agreement in which an individual supports a social system based on hierarchies, that is, on the mark of an inferior "outgroup" (Etchezahar, Cervone, Biglieri, Quattrocchi & Prado-Gascó, 2011). Starting from understanding the asocial tendency, in Hobbesian terms, which is usually towards the "outgroup" (Etchezahar, Prado-Gascó, Jaume & Brussino, 2014), we believe that the study subjects who have internalized a greater distinction of the "outgroup" are predisposed to accept the aggressions towards it, which will be greater when a signifier such as "threat" and "intolerant" towards the "outgroup” is assigned, breeding ground for authoritarianism. In relation to this, besides the sociological phenomena before mentioned, where the dominant class produces psychosocial tendencies on other classes (Bonavena & Nievas, 2012; Gramsci, 2013; Marx & Engels, 1991; & Sidanius Pratto, 1999), there also is a psychological mechanism in which the individual justifies the social system in order to obtain relief from the emotional anguish that would appear while morally acting on the inequality or concerning the economic future (Jaume, Etchezahar & Cervone, 2012). In this sense, Social Domination serves as a conceptual-ideological framework for the Justification of the economic system (Jaume, Etchezahar & Cervone, 2012). In line with this, various authors that analyze this relationship (Jost, 2019; Rodriguez‐Bailon, Bratanova, Willis, Lopez‐Rodriguez, Sturrock & Loughnan, 2017; Khan, Moss, Quratulain & Hameed, 2018; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Jost, Banayi & Nosek, 2004) and of it with Authoritarianism (Kelemen, Szabó, Mészáros, László & Forgas, 2014), state that individuals with a high level of social domination should have a greater predisposition to justify the economic system (Jaume, Etchezahar & Cervone, 2012), and to obey to guarantee social order.

For Argentine immigrants to be incorporated into Israeli society, a shared and similar system of meaning, language and culture must be created (Durkheim, 1982). In this sense, from a sociological approach, it would be important to study the relationship between personal experience, the construction of subjectivity, and the community structure to which it belongs (Waller, 2002). However, in order not to exceed the limits of this work, we will simply study the relationship between personality and obedience, which gives us the possibility tocharacterize the individual according to certain stable and regular traits (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020). Nevertheless, it is not to be ignored that the personality of a subject, and his personal experience, are highly influenced by social interactions that give structure to all community life (Waller, 2002; Simkin & Becerra, 2003). As we said, an individual's orientation to authority is the product of the group of which he is a part, this being an extension of the "I". As part of a group, a collectivist culture is created forming exposure to new and different experiences and improving the level of comfort and self-esteem with regards to their belonging. In this sense, we understand that those subjects with greater positive affection, one of the emotional components of subjective well-being (Simkin, Olivera, & Azzollini, 2020; Diener et al., 2015; Eid & Larsen, 2008; Schimmack, 2008), represented by a set of emotions such as joy, motivation, energy or self-confidence will be more obedient (Pozo Cujano, 2017) while showing a greater willingness to relate positively to others, engage socially, being optimistic, with high self-esteem (Noriega, Freire, Ortíz, & Figueroa, 2010), and therefore integrated into the rules (Pozo Cujano, 2017) Thus now, it should be noted that each person, according to his own personality, presents an "adjustment point" in relation to subjective well-being (Noriega, Freire, Ortíz, & Figueroa, 2010). In this sense, to study personality we will start from the "Big Five Factors" (Costa & McCrae, 1980). We will also focus on the direct relationship that we hope to find between Neuroticism, defined as the tendency to experience negative emotions such as fears, feelings of guilt, sadness or anger (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020), and obedience (Zeigler-Hill & Southard, 2013). People who perceive common situations as "threats" (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020), fit into the pronounced relationship between threat and obedience already mentioned (Santos, 2003).

Similarly, we can expect a positive relationship between Responsibility, compliance with social norms, impulse control, and direction towards a goal (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020), and obedience (Bégue, Béauvois, Courbet, Oberlé, Lepage & Duke, 2015). As Hagan and Ones say, from childhood, we learn that we receive approval for being orderly, obedient, and trustworthy. In this sense, we will continue repeating behaviors that bring such approval from the authority, internalizing them. Responsibility appears as a behavior that guarantees survival in the group (Hogan & Ones, 1997). We also expect a positive relationship between Kindness, a dimension through which an individual tends to cooperate with others, collaborating with group goals (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020) and obedience (Bégue, Béauvois, Courbet, Oberlé, Lepage & Duke, 2015), since although kindness is negatively related to intragroup conflict (Suls, Martin & David, 1998), alienating group goals in the sense stated by Santos (Santos, 2003), it coincides with the act of submission. Regarding Extraversion, it is a characteristic linked to the connection with the outside world through personal interaction (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020), which is found in happy people who exceed in forming groups (Anderson & John, 2012). Although we could think of a positive association with obedience, since these people tend to show active or dominant social behaviors (Ashton, Lee & Paunonen, 2002), and in tune with positive affection (Noriega, Freire, Ortíz & Figueroa, 2010), we also have to state that there is not necessarily a significant relationship between extraversion and obedience (Bégue, Béauvois, Courbet, Oberlé, Lepage & Duke, 2015; Miranda, Caballero, Gomez, & Zamorano, 1981). Likewise, Openness to experience is usually associated with creative people, with artistic and intellectual interests, and a pronounced search for stimuli and feelings, both positive and negative (Simkin, Borchardt Duter & Azzollini, 2020). Taking the analysis made by Bégue (2015) as a reference, we think that there should not necessarily be a relationship between said construct and obedience.

The sample consisted of 204 Argentine immigrants living in Israel, with ages ranging from 20 to 79 years (M = 51.76, SD = 14.21) of both sexes (men = 52, 5%; Women = 47.5%).

A self-administered and anonymous questionnaire was applied, made up of a majority of phrases with Likert-type scales, but with the presence of other types of questions, through the "Google Forms" platform. This advertisement was published on different social networks ("Facebook", "Instagram") according to certain pre-established criteria (age range between 18 and 80 years, Argentine immigrants in Israel). A non-probability sampling was performed for these cases, obtaining a declaration of consent from the participants after applying the questionnaire. For this, it was explained to the respondents that the data collected from the study would be used exclusively for scientific purposes, in an academic context. The results obtained were subjected to a correlation and regression analysis method.

Statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics 25 and EQS 6.4 for Windows.