The mismeasure of culture: When measurement invariance requirements hinder social-psychological research

This article critically assesses the role of measurement invariance techniques in psychology and cross-national research. Despite growing awareness of the need for cross-cultural equivalence in social psychological studies, tension exists between proponents of measurement invariance and practitioners who may find recommended standards overly strict and impractical. We show why measurement invariance standards are so difficult to achieve and propose alternative methods for determining cross-cultural equivalence. We begin by recounting the historical origins of these techniques, which emerged from controversies over comparative studies of intelligence, and contrast these with the philosophical assumptions of neighboring fields in cross-national research. Through simulation and empirical data, we contend that whereas measurement invariance is instrumental for scales that assess individual differences, it is potentially problematic and even untenable when investigating constructs that systematically vary between national and other social groups. Study 1 illustrates why multigroup comparisons with closed-ended scales so often violate measurement invariance. Study 2 takes the General System Justification Scale as a case study to demonstrate external validity with structural indicators of social mobility and societal well-being, despite not meeting strict measurement invariance standards. We conclude that rigid adherence to measurement invariance standards is not necessary to draw meaningful cross-national comparisons. Instead, we propose an alternative approach that prioritizes external validity and exploratory analyses. We offer conceptual guidelines for using measurement invariance testing wisely for social psychological inquiry, rather than allowing blanket misconceptions to hinder cross-national research.