**4. Discussion**

The lockdown restrictions imposed in Spain and across Europe gave rise to a unique and unprecedented situation that had a serious impact on the population's psychological well-being, generating a number of sources of stress. The aim of this study was to ascertain discriminative coping responses to lockdown by university students, divided into a community group and a clinical group.

Firstly, the results of the multivariate comparisons of the average scores for the factors and dimensions of the CRI-A by group (community/clinical) and gender showed that the clinical sample obtained significantly higher scores than the community group in the seeking guidance and support, cognitive avoidance, acceptance or resignation, seeking alternative rewards and emotional discharge factors. The effect size tests indicated a medium–high effect in the cognitive avoidance (*η* = 0.022), acceptance or resignation (*η* = 0.057) and emotional discharge (*η* = 0.063) factors, which are typical of an avoidance response. Coping using cognitive avoidance and acceptance or resignation strategies, as displayed by the clinical group, represents a more cognitive response. Meanwhile, coping using seeking guidance and support and seeking alternative rewards is suggestive of a more behavioural response. The community group obtained significantly higher scores in the problem solving factor.

Secondly, the repeated-measures analysis and the pairwise comparisons corroborated the results set out above, showing significantly higher scores for the clinical group in the cognitive and avoidance dimensions than in the behavioural and approach dimensions, whereas the community group obtained significantly higher scores in the cognitive and approach dimensions than in the behavioural and avoidance dimensions.

In short, the clinical group adopted an unhealthy coping response based on primarily cognitive avoidance strategies (cognitive avoidance and acceptance or resignation). These strategies have a limited effect and are associated with poorer life satisfaction and more severe psychopathological symptoms [25,26]. The clinical group only displayed one healthier, more active strategy: seeking guidance and support. These results raise several questions: (1) Why does the clinical group adopt a pattern of avoidance coping? (2) Why does the clinical group report more extensive use of one approach strategy, seeking guidance and support? (3) What was the influence of gender?

With regard to the first question, the clinical group uses avoidance coping strategies (cognitive avoidance, acceptance or resignation and emotional discharge) and the community group tends to use approach strategies (problem solving). Active or approach strategies appear to be associated with health, while avoidance strategies are linked to the development of a range of diseases [15,16]. It has been demonstrated that the more chronic stressors are present, the less likely individuals will be to adopt approach responses and the more likely they will be to adopt avoidance responses [16]. Other studies show a positive association between avoidance coping strategies and stress, anxiety, anger, sadness and loneliness [27]. The clinical group experienced distress and anxiety as a result of their prior mental health issues and the stress of the lockdown (loss of habits and routines, fear of contagion, concern for classes and exams, etc.).

The clinical group in this study is a sample of a psychopathological clinical population with a large number of pathologies, predominantly anxiety and depression. In general, people with a psychopathological clinical profile (depression, anxiety, eating disorders, addictions, etc.) tend to use ineffective coping strategies and struggle to adopt a healthy coping response [28]. Some studies have shown an association between avoidance strategies and eating disorders [29]. Other longitudinal studies on mood psychopathology found a significant association between depressive symptoms and avoidance coping responses [30–32]. In a similar vein, research has shown that lower use and inhibition of problem solving as a coping strategy is a consequence of depressive states [33].

In answer to the second question, the clinical group obtained significantly higher scores than the community group in the seeking guidance and support factor, which we consider an approach strategy as it represents a behavioural effort to manage or address stressors. Guidance and support may be understood as behavioural attempts to seek information, advice or assistance through social relations with people and groups. According to Yu et al. [34], guidance and support can influence people's physical and mental health as it is beneficial for all individuals and acts to mitigate stress. A number of studies have shown that seeking guidance and support protects people from developing symptoms of depression and anxiety [35–37]. Most existing research indicates that guidance and support have a positive impact on psychological well-being and act as a protective factor against stress [34,38–40]. Support from friends and family plays a crucial role in helping individuals to manage stressful situations such as infectious disease outbreaks [41]. It is possible that the differences observed between the clinical group and the community group in terms of seeking guidance and support lie in the fact that the clinical group is more accustomed to seeking support from friends and family due to their existing mental health issues.

In relation to the third question, male participants obtained significantly higher scores than female participants in the logical analysis factor. Logical analysis refers to cognitive attempts to cope with a stressful situation and its consequences and is closely linked to problem solving. Mataud [42] studied gender differences in coping strategies in Spain and found that women obtained lower scores than men in more rational coping strategies and higher scores than men in more emotional strategies. These results coincide with the meta-analysis conducted by Tamres et al. [43] and research by Rose and Rudolph [44], which found that women scored higher on emotional strategies, avoidance and seeking support. More recently, several studies have confirmed that women report greater use of the strategy of seeking guidance and support than men [45,46].

Finally, to evaluate the discriminative accuracy of the coping responses, a receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (ROC) was carried out to identify the cut-off scores on the CRI-A dimensions after which the probability of behavioural disorders rises. The results of this analysis showed that the highest scores for sensitivity and specificity were obtained by avoidance coping strategies. Certain coping strategies can increase the risk of psychopathological disorders and psychopathology can also determine the use of a specific type of coping strategy [47].
