Can We Measure a Crisis? Rethinking Indicators and Methods in Contexts of Rapid Change

This article critically examines the methodological limitations of constructing indicators during crisis conditions, using the Covid-19 pandemic in Bulgaria as a case study. Drawing on data from a two-wave Computer-Assisted Web Interviewing (CAWI) survey conducted during two lockdowns (Wave1: n = 1173; Wave2: n = 1801), it reflects on the challenges of measuring public attitudes through a battery of true/false statements related to anti-epidemic restrictions. Initial attempts to create composite indices, capturing knowledge accuracy, misinformation uptake, or typological responses based on Sandman’s “hazard + outrage” framework, were proved statistically unviable. Rather than treating this as a technical failure, the study interprets the outcome through a sociological lens, arguing that unstable public responses are themselves meaningful indicators of crisis-related disorientation, emotional strain, and institutional mistrust. The Bulgarian context, marked by low political trust and contradictory communication exemplifies how crisis disrupts both the assumptions of measurement and the interpretive coherence of public discourse. The article argues that under such conditions, indicators should not be forced into artificially coherent scales. Instead, it proposes a context-sensitive approach that acknowledges the limits of index construction when attitudes are shaped by uncertainty, contradiction, and shifting institutional cues. The resulting Descriptive Misinformation Score, based solely on consistently worded false items, is presented not as a predictive scale but as a descriptive lens to relatively trace susceptibility to misinformation over time. The study contributes to the methodology of social indicators by offering a critical reflection on measurement validity in moments of heightened societal volatility.