Abstract
Despite growing recognition of the need for cross-national or cross-cultural validation of measures in social psychological research, a tension persists between proponents of measurement invariance and practitioners frustrated with stringent standards and ambiguous recommendations. This article critiques common applications of measurement invariance standards and proposes an alternative method for establishing cross-group validity. We highlight how measurement invariance emerged from concerns about fairness in high-stakes individual selections and is based on meta-theoretical assumptions usually irrelevant for drawing cross-societal comparisons. Using the General System Justification Scale as an example, we demonstrate how reliance on a nomological network can ensure meaningful group differences without meeting invariance criteria and show how non-invariance is preferable to approximate (or partial) invariance. We recommend that psychologists interested in cross-group comparisons isolate construct-relevant factors from method bias. Doing so requires defining a priori the goal of scale use and what is "societal" or "cultural" about what is being measured.
