Participants

From June 3 to July 5, 2020, a total of 2,650 people over 18 years from of all the country virtually answered a semi-structured questionnaire through the Questionpro platform. Exclusion criteria was haven’t finished the survey and not living in Mexico. Of all the respondents, 1,438 (54%) lived in Mexico City, 359 (14%) in the Estado de México, 108 (4.1%) in Queretaro, 62 (2%) in Morelos, and 57 (2%) in Michoacán; from the rest of the states, a participation of less than 2% was obtained in each one, so this distribution is not specified.

Measurements

A self-applied semi-structured questionnaire was designed based on the existing emotions and coping literature; a qualitative pilot study was previously performed. The questionnaire consists of 25 questions divided into six sections: 1. sociodemographics, 2. opinions on COVID-19 origins, 3. opinions about acceptance of imposed measures to reduce contagion and explanations about verbal/physical attacks on health personnel, 4. experiences during the pandemic, 5. coping strategies, and (6) four open-ended questions about: actions taken to feel good/bad, the three most worrisome things about the pandemic, and positive actions to face them. For the present research article, we explored the following sections.

Sociodemographics. Sex, marital status, education, employment status, source of income (salary/own income, couple’s support, from social programs; from family or friends; scholarship; lost source of income due to the pandemic, no income prior to the lockdown); presence of at risk/vulnerable persons in household (elderly, persons with disabilities/chronic disease and/or underage persons).

Emotions. Information’s sources (media, social, and personal networks) and feelings by the question How do you feel when you read, listen to or receive information from those sources about COVID-19? More than one option could be selected: Having fun, Calm, Hopeful, Willing to help others, Sad, Suspicious, Worried, Fearful, Angry, Indifferent, and Other.

Coping strategies. This section was designed based on previous literature on coping strategies used in any situation (^{Sandín & Chorot, 2003}), including COVID-19 specific strategies (^{Chew et al., 2020}; ^{Gerhold, 2020}). A total of 18 items assessed, in a three-point Likert scale (many times, sometimes, and never), the cognitive and behavioral efforts carried out by the respondent, to face specific environmental endanger situations to his/her well-being during COVID-19 pandemic (^{Sandín & Chorot, 2003}).

Procedure

On June 3, 2020, an invitation to participate in a study with a link to acces it, began to be disseminated through personal emails and social networks (SN) ‒ including the official page of the Instituto Nacional de Psiquiatría Ramón de la Fuente Muñiz (INPRFM, National Institute of Psychiatry). When accessing the link, informed consent was included on the home page. In this, the informant's voluntary participation was requested, the objective of the study and the expected contributions were explained in understandable terms, and it was emphasized that the information to be provided was anonymous and confidential and that the participant could withdraw at any time. A link with psychoeducational resources was also incorporated, so that they were available to all people, even those who decided not to participate. The questionnaire had an average duration of 17 minutes. Likewise, those who responded to the questionnaire were asked to forward the invitation to other people through their SNs and emails; July 5, 2020 was the last day the questionnaire was available on the platform.

Statistical analysis

For these analyses, those who answered “other” to sex question were excluded (n = 8). Non-parametric statistics were performed for bivariate analyses. Chi-square was used to analyze emotion by sex and H of Kruskal-Wallis for coping strategies by sex and by emotion. Responses of coping strategies were analyzed as quantitative variables and means were reported. All analyses were performed in SPSS V. 21.0.0.0.

Ethical considerations

The project was reviewed and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the INPRFM, and an informed consent was obtained prior to data collection.

Sociodemographic

A total of 2,642 out of 2,650 respondents were included on the analyses. Table 1 shows demographic characteristics of the sample by sex. It is noteworthy that only 21.6% were men. The mean age was 29 years old. More than a third of the participants reported being single, and a similar proportion reported being married. Regarding education, half of the participants had completed college, followed by one third with postgraduate education, and only 15% had a high school education or less. In terms of occupation, participants were mainly employees followed by independent workers. A slightly higher percentage of men fell in this category compared to women; but there is a considerably higher proportion of housewives among women in comparison to men. The main source of income was salary in more than two thirds of the participants, also a bit higher in men compared to women, while shared expenses with a partner and financial support from family/friends was higher in women than in men. More than a third of participants cohabit with an older adult, a slightly higher percentage among men than women, while living with people with disabilities or chronic diseases or with children were reported by more women than men. One out of three participants reported to live with vulnerable persons.

Information emotion-related

In the total sample, the most frequently reported emotion was feeling worried when exposed to information about COVID-19 (64.2%); around one in four participants showed a willingness to help others (empathy), but they also felt distrust, fear, and sadness in front of this situation. More men than women significantly reported to feel calm (21.9% vs. 11.4%, p < .001), hopeful (15.2% vs. 11.3%, p = .011), and indifferent (4.4% vs. 2.0%, p = .002). In contrast, more women, compared to men, significantly reported to feel worried (67.7% vs. 51.6%, p < .001), fearful (27.7% vs. 15.9%, p < .001) and sad (26.7% vs. 16.0%, p < .001). Not significant differences were found on emotions by level of education. (Table 2)

Coping strategies during pandemic’s lockdown by sex

Table 3 shows the coping strategies distributed by sex, from the most used ‒ trying to be on good terms with the family ‒to the least used‒ panic buying. Women used strategies related to the expression of positive emotions to face the pandemic more often than men, such as seeking to be on good terms with the family (p = .027), getting emotionally close to other people through virtual means (p < .001) and supporting family or close people in the best possible way (p = .006). They also used more self-care practices: they tried to feel better taking care of themselves through reading, meditation, or exercise (p < .001). The least used strategies also showed significant differences by sex; more men than women reported never being easily angry or irritated with others (p < .001), nor did they seek professional help when they felt physically or mentally ill (p < .001), they never thought that everything they did would go wrong (p = .031), nor did they make panic buying (p < .001). Trying to feel better by eating, drinking, smoking, or taking medication was a strategy used in a similar proportion by men and women (around 33% had done it sometimes and many times).

More than 90% of the participants reported a positive assessment of the situation: sometimes and many times they laughed and sought to have fun or have the best time possible and tried to focus on solving problems such as listening to the experts and following their advice. Both men and women reported in a similar proportion, four out of five, seeking to be distracted to avoid the problem: spending too much time watching series, television, using cell phones or playing video games, and sleeping too much/staying in bed during the entire day; also two thirds felt powerless and unable to do something positive to change the situation, that is, they focused on negative emotions.

Likewise, significant differences by sex were observed in concentrating on some activity to distract themselves and forget the pandemic (p = .015), seeking a family member or friend to listen when they needed to express their feelings and concerns (p < .006), and in worrying too much (p < .001), where women were the ones who most reported these strategies of avoidance, seeking social support, and focusing on negative emotions, respectively. When it comes to praying, almost twice as many women (30%) used this strategy more often compared to men (15.3%, p < .001). No significant differences were found in coping strategies by educational level.

Coping strategies during pandemic’s lockdown by emotion and sex

Table 4 shows the means of the coping strategies used to face the pandemic’s lockdown, according to the emotion provoked when being exposed to information from the mass media on the subject and according to sex using the Kruskal-Wallis test to observe statistical differences. On a scale of 1 to 3, the number closest to three indicates greater use of that strategy. Having fun, feeling indifferent, and other emotions were excluded due to the small sample size.

No differences were observed in strategies for approaching and supporting family members and significant others or in trying to feel better by eating, drinking, smoking, or taking medications; nor in feeling unable to do something positive to change the situation, falling asleep / staying in bed all day, thinking that whatever you do will go wrong and trying to feel better with self-care (diet, exercise, meditation, etc. ) or laughing/looking to have fun to have the best possible time. That is, these were carried out by the participants without being associated with any of the emotions reported when exposed to information or with any sex.

It stands out that women pray more frequently than men, showing that it is a strategy used in the face of positive emotions, such as calm (X2 [1] = 7.831, p = .005), hope (X2 [1] = 5.179, p = .023) , and willingness to help others (empathy) (X2 [1] = 4.763, p = .029), but also in the face of sadness (X2 [1] = 8,049, p = .005), suspicion (X2 [1] = 24,891, p = .000), fear (X2 [1] = 13.111, p = .000), or anger (X2 [1] = 6.056, p = .014). They also reported getting emotionally close to others through virtual social networks in the presence of tranquility (X2 [1] = 4.917, p = .027), hope (X2 [1] = 6.481, p = .011), and empathy (X2 [1] = 14.801, p = .000), although also when reporting mistrust (X2 [1] = 4.845, p = .028). They also sought social support to express their feelings and concerns, mainly in the face of emotions of distrust (X2 [1] = 11.272, p = .001), worry (X2 [1] = 10.885, p = .001), fear (X2 [1] = 4.966, p = .026), and anger (X2 [1] = 14.891, p = .000); although they did the same when they were calm (X2 [1] = 12. 982, p = .000).

Women expressed negative emotions to other people, both when reporting hope (X2 [1] 3.993 p = .046 M) and empathy (X2 [1] 4.974, p = .026), and when reporting sadness (X2 [1] 3.949, p = .047), worry (X2 [1] 9.838, p = .002), and anger (X2 [1] 7.210, p = .007). They also sought more professional help if they felt physically or emotionally ill when they reported negative emotions such as sadness (X2 [1] 5.632 p = .018), suspicion (X2 [1] 8.349, p = .004,) worry (X2 [1] 11.957 p = .001), fear (X2 [1] 7.196, p = .007), and anger (X2 [1] 13.407, p = .000); they mostly supported family members or individuals when reporting fear (X2 [1] 5.956, p = .015) and anger (X2 [1] = 4.176, p = .041); reported concentrating on some activities to distract themselves and forget the pandemic when they were willing to help others (X2 [1] = 3.930, p = .047) and angry (X2 [1] = 4.309, p = .038); they indicated being overly concerned as a coping strategy if they reported empathy (X2 [1] = 3.998, p = .046) and concern when exposing themselves to the media (X2 [1] = 5.245, p = .022). Finally, women reported more panic purchases due to being willing to help (X2 [1] = 10.616, p = .001) and worry (X2 [1] = 9.926, p = .002).

The only strategy reported more by men was to spend most of the time watching series, television, using the cell phone or playing video games when reporting calm in the face of exposure to information about the pandemic (X2 [1] = 4.917, p = .027).