Table 3.

Summary of hierarchical regression analyses of IMS scores and diary intrusions (N = 85)

Step	Predictors	(Δ)R² (%)	df	F-(change)	B	SE B	Beta
Model 1: IMS
1	Gender	13	4, 80	2.77*	1.64	1.39	0.13
	Film-related distress				0.02	0.03	0.08
	CVLT-list-order				−1.24	1.27	−0.12
	Learning ability				0.54	0.33	0.20
2	Gender	10	2, 78	4.62*	2.04	1.41	0.18
	Film-related distress				0.03	0.03	0.12
	CVLT-list-order				−2.05	1.28	−0.22
	Learning ability				0.02	0.01	0.20
	Neuroticism				0.02	0.06	0.05
	CVLT-interference				0.79	0.28	0.34**
3	Gender	0.3	1, 57	0.24	2.23	1.52	0.18
	Film-related distress				0.03	0.03	0.12
	CVLT-list-order				−2.27	1.31	−0.22
	Learning ability				0.79	0.30	0.20
	Neuroticism				0.03	0.06	0.05
	CVLT-interference				0.79	0.30	0.34**
	Neuroticism*CVLT-interference				0.04	0.77	0.01
Model 2: Diary intrusions-sqrt
1	Gender	6	4, 80	0.92	0.40	0.52	0. 09
	Film-related distress				0.02	0.01	0.19
	CVLT-list-order				−0.39	0.50	0.11
	Learning ability				−0.01	0.01	−0.12
2	Gender	8	2, 78	3.80*	0.22	0.53	0.05
	Film-related distress				0.02	0.01	0.21
	CVLT-list-order				−0.71	0.50.	−0.19
	Learning ability				−0.01	0.01	−0.10
	Neuroticism				0.05	0.03	0.27†
	CVLT-interference				0.21	0.11	0.26*
3	Gender	1	1, 77	0.67	0.26	0.54	0.06
	Film-related distress				0.02	0.01	0.20
	CVLT-list-order				−0.74	0.51	−0.20.
	Learning ability				−0.01	0.01	−0.11
	Neuroticism				0.06	0.03	0.29
	CVLT-interference				0.19	0.11	0.23
	Neuroticism*CVLT-interference				−0.22	0.29	−0.10

IMS impact of movie scale, CVLT California verbal learning test

† P < 0.10; * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01