Abstract:Individualism and collectivism are some of the most widely applied concepts in cultural and cross-cultural research. They are commonly applied by scholars who use arithmetic means or sum indexes of items on a scale to examine the potential similarities and differences in samples from various countries. For many reasons, cross-cultural research implicates numerous methodological and statistical pitfalls. The aim of this article is to summarize some of those pitfalls, particularly the problem of measurement non-invariance, which stems from the different understandings of questionnaire items or even different character of constructs between countries. This potential bias is reduced by latent mean comparisons performed with Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analysis and the Measurement Invariance procedure within a Structural Equation Modeling framework. These procedures have been neglected by many researchers in the field of cross-cultural psychology, however. In this article, we compare ‘traditional’ (comparison of arithmetic means) and ‘invariant’ (latent mean comparison) approaches and provide necessary R source codes for replications of measurement invariance and latent mean comparisons within other scales. Both approaches are demonstrated with real data gathered on an Independent and Interdependent Self-Scale from 1386 participants across six countries (Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, Macedonia and Albania). Our results revealed considerable differences between the ‘invariant’ and ‘traditional’ approaches, especially in post-hoc analyses. Since ‘invariant’ results can be considered less biased, this finding suggests that the currently prevalent method of comparing the arithmetic means of cross-cultural scales of individualism and collectivism can potentially cause biased results.

Difficulties of Measuring Culture in Privacy Studies

Cash, Cards or Cryptocurrencies? A Study of Payment Culture in Four Countries

Impact of Cultural Tightness on Consumers' Preference for Anthropomorphic AI Services

MIsgivings about measurement invariance

A Cross-Cultural Perspective on the Privacy Calculus

Cultural differences in conceptual representation of “Privacy”: A comparison between Iran and the United States

An Open Model for Researching the Role of Culture in Online Self-Disclosure

Cultural Differences in Students' Privacy Concerns in Learning Analytics across Germany, South Korea, Spain, Sweden, and the United States

On Detecting Systematic Measurement Error in Cross-Cultural Research: A Review and Critical Reflection on Equivalence and Invariance Tests

Measurement Issues in Tests of the Socioecological Complexity Hypothesis

Measurement Invariance of the Moral Vitalism Scale Across 28 Cultural Groups.

Measuring culture outside the head: a meta-analysis of individualism-collectivism in cultural products

The Necessity of Testing Measurement Invariance in Cross-Cultural Research: Potential Bias in Cross-Cultural Comparisons With Individualism– Collectivism Self-Report Scales

How WEIRD is Usable Privacy and Security Research? (Extended Version)

Culture and International Usability Testing: The Effects of Culture in Structured Interviews

Necessary but Insufficient: Why Measurement Invariance Tests Need Online Probing as a Complementary Tool

Measuring Cultural Dimensions: External Validity and Internal Consistency of Hofstede's VSM 2013 Scales

Conceptualizing and measuring privacy boundary turbulence in technological contexts: Constructing a measurement scale

Inter-relationships among individual views of COVID-19 control measures across multi-cultural contexts

Disentangling the effects of culture and language on measurement noninvariance in cross-cultural research: The culture, comprehension, and translation bias (CCT) procedure.

Digital Divide and Social Dilemma of Privacy Preservation