Comparing institutional trust: epistemological fallacies and how to avoid them

This paper addresses the methodological and epistemological challenges of comparing institutional trust across diverse populations. Institutional trust, conceptualized either as a stable psychological trait or as dynamic evaluations of institutional performance, can produce contradictory results in comparability assessments. These discrepancies stem from misalignments between theoretical assumptions, measurement models, and comparability assessments. Using original survey data from Syrian and Ukrainian refugees and native populations in Denmark and Norway (N = 5,272), this study contrasts two approaches. First, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MGCFA), which prioritizes internal consistency for reflective constructs. Second, a modified principle of compositional substitutability, developed in this paper, assessing external linkages for formative constructs. Findings illustrate how differing epistemological norms shape conclusions about comparability and demonstrate the utility of within-person variability as a diagnostic tool. It concludes with a diagnostic framework and practical guidance, offering broader insights for comparative research on constructs with contested conceptualizations.