Participants

The sample is composed of a total of 1,182 adults (over 18 years old) from Poland (50.8%: 40.3% male, 59.7% females) and Spain (49.2%: 17% male, 82.9% female). We calculated age range categories on the basis of the cut-off points obtained in previous COVID-19 meta-analysis studies, in which affective mental health consequences appear to be more prevalent in those aged 21 - 40 years (^{Salari et al., 2020}). So, in this study we will work with groups aged 18 - 20 years (Young; Poland: 13.8%, Spain: 5.8%), 21 - 40 years (Middle; Poland: 75.8%, Spain: 46.2%), and 41+ years (Elderly; Poland: 10.3%, Spain: 47.8%).

Instruments

All the methods used have been well validated in each country. All participants responded on the basis of the COVID-19 lockdown situation in the last few months (March to July 2020). Cronbach’s alphas in this study for each country were adequate and are presented in Table 2.

Cognitive Emotional Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ; ^{Garnefski & Kraaij, 2002}; Spanish version of ^{Domínguez-Sánchez et al., 2011}; Polish version of ^{Marszał-Wiśniewska & Fajkowska, 2010}). This questionnaire measures the cognitive emotion regulation strategies used by individuals after the occurrence of a negative event. It consists of 36 items, each of which has five response options ranging from ‘Almost never’ (1) to ‘Almost always’ (5). Nine cognitive strategies are evaluated: Rumination, Catastrophizing, Self-blame (not applied in this study), Blaming Others, Putting into Perspective, Acceptance, Positive Focusing, Positive Reinterpretation and Refocusing on Plans, with four items each. Also, two major factors can be obtained with good reliability: Maladaptive (the first four strategies) and Adaptive strategies (^{Martin & Dahlen, 2005}).

Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21; ^{Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995}; Spanish version of ^{Bados et al., 2005}; Polish version of ^{Makara-Studzińska et al., n.d.}) This instrument measures psychological distress according to the tripartite model of anxiety, depression, and stress. It consists of a set of three self-report scales designed to assess negative emotional states related to depression, anxiety, and stress (Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Additionally, a total factor can be obtained. Each of the three DASS-21 scales contains seven items with 4-point Likert-type scales, from 0 = ‘Does not apply to me’ to 3 = ‘Most of the time’.

The Brief Resilience Coping Scale (BRCS; ^{Sinclair & Wallston, 2004}; Spanish version of ^{Limonero et al., 2014}); Polish version of ^{Piórowska et al., 2017}) It comprises four items that assess the ability to cope with stress in an adaptive manner, measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1= ‘the statement does not describe me at all’ to 5 = ‘the statement describes me very well’).

Procedure

This study was carried out in accordance with the ^{Declaration of Helsinki (2013}) and included informed consent, thus ensuring anonymity throughout the process and the option to quit at any moment. The 10-minute questionnaire was completed online. It requests participants to think about the recent months (March to June 2020) since the COVID-19 pandemic started. Participants received the invitation to the questionnaire through email and social networks; they were asked to share it with others with a minimum age of 18 years (snowball method).

Data Analysis

We carried out descriptive analysis of the sample, segmented by country (Table 1); this was followed by Pearson Chi-Square analysis to examine gender- and age-related differences between samples. Reliability was obtained for each subscale with the use of Cronbach’s alpha analysis (Table 1). MANOVA analysis was conducted to study differences between criterion variables (depression, anxiety, stress, CERS and resilience) depending on the country (Table 1). To give a better overview of these results, effect sizes as estimated by Cohen’s d were calculated. After this, we carried out a MANCOVA, thus repeating the previous analysis but controlling for gender and age range (Table 1). Pearson correlations (Table 2) were carried out between all criterion variables (CERS and resilience) and dependent variables (depression, anxiety, stress, and total DASS score) in each country. Then, a linear regression analysis (Table 2) using the Enter method and segmented by country was conducted to analyze the prediction of dependent variables; criterion variables, controlled for gender, and age were inserted. Differences in the magnitude of the associations between countries were examined by testing the difference between two independent correlations based on ^{Eid, Gollwitzer & Schmidt (2011}).

Table 1 Descriptives, reliability, MANOVA of all subscales by country, Cohen’s d, and MANCOVA with gender and age range 

Results

Pearson correlations and linear regression analysis by country

As we can observe in Table 2, in both countries there are significant correlations between resilience, most CERS variables, and psychological distress. First, depression correlates with all variables in Poland and Spain, with the exception of refocusing on plans and general adaptive strategies in the latter. Anxiety is correlated with variables in both countries, especially in Poland, with the exception of positive reevaluation, perspective taking, and blaming others in Spain, as well as focus on plans and adaptive strategies in both countries. Stress shows significant correlations with most variables in both countries, with the exception of positive reevaluation in Spain, focus on plans in Poland, and perspective taking and adaptive strategies in both countries. The total DASS score of psychological distress correlates with all variables in both countries, with the exception of positive reevaluation, perspective taking and adaptive strategies in Spain. Most significant correlations with resilience and adaptive strategies were negative, while significant correlations with maladaptive strategies were positive. Acceptance, however, correlates in a positive way with depression, anxiety, stress and total DASS in both samples.

Complete regression models for each country are shown in Table 2. In general, regression analysis shows different prediction models of psychological distress for each country, although we found similar results that identify catastrophizing and rumination as relevant predictors in both countries. Important differences appear related to sociodemographic variables; in particular, female gender and higher age are predictors only in Spain. Some general factors are significantly predictive only in one of the compared countries, such as adaptive strategies in Spain and resilience in Poland. However, the general maladaptive strategies factor is not predictive in either country. Comparing the correlation analysis between these countries shows significant differences in all dependent variables (Table 2)

Table 2 Pearson Correlations and Linear Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Depression, Anxiety, Stress and DASS total 

Discussion

The objective of this study was to analyze the differences between Poland and Spain in resilience, cognitive regulation of emotions, as well as psychological distress during the Coronavirus pandemic lockdown in these adult populations.

Regarding the differences between countries, a higher level of anxiety was observed in the Polish sample compared to the Spanish one; this could be explained by the fact that the Polish sample uses maladaptive strategies more frequently than adaptive ones. Specifically, Polish participants used more catastrophizing, which consists of thoughts that anticipate exaggerated or disproportionate consequences, and rumination, which is defined as thinking excessively about the feelings or problems associated with the occurrence of a negative event (^{Domínguez & Medrano, 2016}). In terms of resilience and the impact of CERS on psychological distress, this study showed that Polish citizens use the perspective-taking strategy to a lesser extent (relativizing the seriousness of a negative event; ^{Medrano et al., 2013}) and suffered from higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress and general psychological distress. Other risk factors in the Polish population included the less frequent use of the positive focus strategy (maintaining pleasant and happy thoughts after an unpleasant event; ^{Garnefski & Kraaij, 2007}), increased use of maladaptive CERS, such as catastrophizing and rumination strategies, and the use of blaming others (cognitive process of causal attribution of an unpleasant event to other people; Dominguez y Medrano, 2016). According to a meta-analysis (^{Aldao et al., 2010}), maladaptive strategies and the decreased use of adaptive strategies in the process of cognitive regulation of emotions are consistently related to psychological distress. This could explain the Polish sample’s low level of resilience, which is a predictive factor of stress and general psychological distress (^{Agnieszka et al., 2020}; ^{Domaradzka & Fajkowska, 2018}). Regarding the adaptive CERS, it should be noted that Polish participants showed more acceptance than their Spanish counterparts during the COVID-19 pandemic. Likewise, greater acceptance was predictive of higher levels of anxiety, stress and general psychological distress in the Polish population. Acceptance refers to a cognitive process that consists not in trying to change or control unpleasant emotions or events but in experiencing them by accepting them without judgement (Domínguez & Medrano, 2016). Previous studies found a positive association between this strategy and affective disorders (^{Kraaij et al., 2002}; ^{Martin & Dahlen, 2005}). Thus, some authors point out that acceptance could be adaptive only in certain circumstances, possibly depending on the type of mood being considered (Martin & Dahlen, 2005). In this sense, this emotional regulation strategy could be related to the assumption of a state of hopelessness in the face of the current crisis.

Secondly, the Spanish population experienced a higher level of stress compared to the Polish one; this could be explained by the fact that older age and female gender appeared as risk factors of psychological distress in this sample. These results are in line with recent studies (^{Ozamiz-Etxebarria et al., 2020}) which indicate that both being older and female gender increase the risk of psychological distress due to the greater possibility of unemployment, the difficulties of reconciling work/telework with family life, and fear of getting sick from COVID-19. As seen in previous literature (^{Aldao et al., 2010}) and similarly to Poland, for Spanish participants catastrophizing and rumination were risk factors of depression, anxiety, stress and general psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic. Similarly to Poland, less frequent use of the positive focus strategy was a risk factor of depression and anxiety for Spaniards, and acceptance positively predicted greater stress in this sample. This surprising result may be related to a sense of hopelessness and unpredictability caused by the pandemic. Various studies indicate that intolerance to uncertainty, fears about the future, how long the restrictive measures will last, exposure to the media, etc, are powerful predictors of psychological distress during the COVID-19 lockdown (^{Cedeño et al., 2020}; ^{Sandín et al., 2020}). Our results could explain the population's effort to try to regain a perception of control during the COVID-19 pandemic and to try to come to terms with this difficult situation. Despite this, the use of this strategy as a way to regulate unpleasant emotional states is dysfunctional and even counterproductive, probably because there is a relationship between acceptance and the activation of ruminative thinking during a stressful life period like the current one (^{Ehring, & Ehlers, 2014}).

On the other hand, the Spanish population reported higher resilience and greater use of adaptive strategies for cognitive regulation of emotions than the Polish one. Spanish participants were also more likely to take perspective and refocus on plans. In this sense, relativizing the seriousness of a negative event and applying thinking strategies that focus on solving the problem (^{Domínguez & Medrano, 2016}) are cognitive emotional strategies related to greater tolerance to negative experiences (^{Aldao et al., 2010}). This is why our results support the idea that adaptive coping strategies could explain the Spanish sample’s higher resilience score (^{Polizzi, et al. 2020}). In fact, in this study adaptive CERS was only a protective factor of stress and general psychological distress in the Spanish population. It could be assumed that Spanish people regulate their emotions better to deal with adverse situations and succeed in the face of the challenges posed by the current pandemic. These differences between Poland and Spain could be explained by the Theory of Reasoned Action (^{Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977}), from which it is understood that subjective norms shared in each cultural context condition behaviors. In this sense, research on reappraisal suggests that distinct emotion-regulation strategies probably operate quite differently depending on the culture (^{Kwon et al., 2013}). For example, countries with Mediterranean culture like Spain are characterized by aspects such as closeness and physical contact, socializing in public spaces, and a feeling of unity that reinforces social ties between the population (^{Mizrahi, 2020}). Some studies suggest that individuals in Mediterranean countries are more likely to foster positive social relationships and use reevaluation and resilience strategies more than individuals from Eastern countries (^{Huppert & So, 2013}), probably because in this context adapting emotions to the social environment acquires greater relevance (^{Butler, 2007}).

Despite differences in anxiety and stress, both of which are related to physical hyperarousal and negative affect, we did not find differences in depression levels, which is related to the absence of positive affect (^{Henry & Crawford, 2005}). This result could be explained due to Poland and Spain are countries with individualistic cultures, characterized by more open social relationships unlike collectivist cultures (^{Páez & Zubieta, 2005}). Some studies have pointed out that independent or individualistic personal self-construction is negatively associated with depression (^{Knyazev et al., 2017}), which could explain the lack of significant differences in depression between Poland and Spain.

Our results must be interpreted cautiously in the context of certain methodological limitations. It should be noted that it would be desirable for the samples to be more demographically homogeneous between the countries. In addition, it is recommended that future studies examine the adaptive or maladaptive nature of the acceptance strategy in traumatic situations such as the current pandemic. Likewise, in addition to CERS and resilience, other personal variables can possibly be studied, such as personal protective factors (e.g. trait and ability emotional intelligence or personality traits) that influence the prevention of psychological distress.

In conclusion, these two countries have experienced and coped with the COVID-19 lockdown in different ways, thus confirming the mental health consequences of the pandemic and the cultural differences in the emotional regulation strategies used to cope with it. We believe that the insights gained from this study could benefit initiatives for the promotion of psychological well-being as a way to prevent psychopathological disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study also provides guidance concerning the levels of psychological distress that these populations are likely to experience in this kind of critical situation, guiding interventions when cultural diversity should be taken into account.