Journal of Personality Assessment

ISSN: 0022-3891 (Print) 1532-7752 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Contemporary Data on the Location of Response

Objects in Rorschach's Inkblots

Benjamin A. Berry & Gregory J. Meyer

To cite this article: Benjamin A. Berry & Gregory J. Meyer (2018): Contemporary Data on the
Location of Response Objects in Rorschach's Inkblots, Journal of Personality Assessment, DOI:
10.1080/00223891.2017.1408016

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1408016

Published online: 10 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 12

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hjpa20
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1408016

Contemporary Data on the Location of Response Objects in Rorschach’s Inkblots

Benjamin A. Berry , and Gregory J. Meyer
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Using a diverse sample of 4,786 protocols obtained with the Rorschach Performance Assessment System Received 25 July 2017
(Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard, & Erdberg, 2011), we provide a contemporary overview of how people Revised 2 October 2017
organize Rorschach’s inkblots into identifiable regions while formulating responses. After examining how
frequently each location was used across all cards in this sample, we examined the consistency of their use
by computing parallel information in 17 samples (N D 4,701) obtained using the Comprehensive System (CS;
Exner, 2003), including clinical, nonclinical, and adult, child, and adolescent data. Even though the CS data
could only record a single location for each response, the average correlation of location use across samples
was .96. The results also document continuous dimensionality in use rather than any discontinuities that
would demarcate a boundary between common and uncommon locations. Implications of this notable
reproducibility and dimensionality are discussed for future conceptualization of location typicality, including
location coding considerations and possibilities for improved measures of perceptual fit.

One of the basic processes involved in generating responses to
Rorschach’s inkblots, long used to measure the typicality and
accuracy of perception, is the basic organization of some or all
of the inkblot stimulus into a perceived location for one or
more objects. Historically and in contemporary Rorschach cod-
ing systems (Beck, Beck, Levitt, & Molish, 1961; Exner, 1974,
1986; 2003; Hertz, 1937, 1970; Meyer, Viglione, Mihura, Erard,
& Erdberg, 2011), the inkblot locations where response objects
are identified generally have been classified using three mutually
exclusive and exhaustive categories. Responses that make use of
the whole inkblot are designated W. Frequently used subcom-
ponents of the inkblot are given the designation D to denote a
common detail, and unconventional locations are designated
Dd to indicate an uncommon or rare detail. Additionally, all D
locations and some Dd locations are assigned individual num-
bers, such that specific locations can be designated.
These location categories are intended to measure the style
with which respondents perceive their environment. People who
tend to use the whole stimulus when constructing responses are
engaging in global perception that makes use of all available
information, and are expected to do so in their larger phenome-
nological environment as well. People who regularly make use of
D locations are thought to have a tendency to focus their percep-
tion in conventional ways. People who frequently use Dd loca-
tions are thought to have a broader tendency to focus on unusual
details of their experiential environment, perhaps because they
make idiosyncratic distinctions or struggle to see things in more
typical ways (Meyer et al., 2011).
In the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS;
Meyer et al., 2011), the W% and Dd% variables, which respec-
tively measure a person’s tendency toward W and Dd
responses, are listed as Page 2 variables, meaning that evidence
of their validity is tentative. No validity studies of the Economy
Index, a variable based on relative location use, met the inclu-
sion criteria for Mihura, Meyer, Dumitrascu, and Bombel’s
(2013) meta-analyses examining the validity of Comprehensive
System (CS; Exner, 2003) variables. However, the location vari-
ables have response process support in the sense that the visual
features to which an examinee attends during the Rorschach
task can involve more or less typical choices. Nonetheless, the
reason these variables are on Page 2 in R-PAS is that this
response process support is complicated by the fact that some
cards are spatially cohesive whereas others are more complex
and divided into individual subcomponents. The response pro-
cess involved in generating a W on cards with multiple visually
distinct critical bits1 (specifically Cards II, III, VIII, IX, and X)
might be different from the response process involved in pro-
ducing a W response on cards with fewer visually distinct loca-
tions (specifically, Cards I, IV, and V). The former is typically
an act of complex and holistic perception, but the latter might
reflect a more simplistic and conventional process.
Different Rorschach systems have varied slightly in their
definition of location categories (Beck et al., 1961; Exner, 1974,
1986, 2003; Hertz, 1937). In 1937, Hertz was the first to base
the distinction between common D and rare Dd locations on
the observed frequency of location use. In a sample of 300 non-
patient children and adolescents, Hertz noted that more com-
mon detail locations as determined empirically tended to also
be rated as more typical by expert judges, although this fit var-
ied by card. Subsequently, Hertz (1970) increased the size (N D
1,050) and age range (10–19) of her sample, although she
retained a strict empirical criterion for differentiating common

CONTACT Benjamin A. Berry Benjamin.Berry@rockets.utoledo.edu Department of Psychology, MS 948, University of Toledo, 2801 W. Bancroft, Toledo, OH
43606.
1
Critical bits are the visual stimulus features that guide and structure perception in the inkblot stimuli (Exner, 1996; Meyer et al., 2011).

© 2018 Taylor & Francis

2 BERRY AND MEYER
and rare locations.2 Her criterion led to the identification of 97
common detail areas.
In Beck’s scoring system (Beck et al., 1961), the differentia-
tion of common and uncommon details was made using a sam-
ple of 157 adult nonpatients (Beck, Rabin, Thiesen, Molish, &
Thetford, 1950). The cutoff point separating D from Dd varied
by card to accommodate the differing location frequency distri-
butions by card, “since each figure represents a different set of
perceptual conditions” (Beck et al., 1961, p. 24). Beck et al.
(1961) identified 105 common detail locations. Beck et al.
(1961, p. 31) also indicated that D and Dd location numbers
were assigned on the basis of use frequency, such that for each
card location 1 was more commonly used than location 2 and
so on, although the underlying data (Beck et al., 1950) did not
fully support this pattern. Regardless, Exner (1974) adopted
Beck et al.’s (1961) location classification and numbering sys-
tem when he first developed the CS.
In 1986, Exner revised the classification of locations using a
sample of 3,000 protocols, including 1,500 nonpatients, 750
nonpsychotic outpatient children and adults, and 750 psychiat-
ric inpatients. Exner used an absolute cutoff point applied
across cards: Any location used in at least 5% of protocols qual-
ified for a D code, and any location used in less than 5% of pro-
tocols was coded Dd. With this updated criterion, 28 areas
previously considered common were reclassified as uncommon,
and 5 previously considered uncommon areas were classified as
common, resulting in a total of 82 D areas in the revised CS.
Exner did not change the numbering for all the individual loca-
tions to match the newer location frequency data, however.
Thus, the numbering generally was the same as that assigned
by Beck et al. (1961). The revised CS locations were adopted
into R-PAS (Meyer et al., 2011).
Notably, the conventionality of response locations has been
classified categorically in each of these location coding systems,
using three classes (whole inkblot, common detail, uncommon
detail). However, the perceptual process involved in organizing
a Rorschach inkblot into a response is far richer than the three
categories would suggest. The actual frequency of use of each
inkblot location varies considerably from location to location
and across cards. For instance, use of the whole inkblot is more
common on some cards than on others, and some Dd areas are
far less typical than others. However, the conventionality of
each individual location on the inkblots is determined by the
stimuli themselves, so the frequency of use of a given location
should remain relatively constant across different samples, so
long as they are reasonably large and able to provide a stable
estimate of response propensities.
Furthermore, the qualities thought to be denoted by each
location code (exhaustiveness, denoted by W, typicality,
denoted by D, and atypicality, denoted by Dd) are not actually
2
Hertz counted the frequency both of objects (e.g., “a bear” would be one loca-
tion) and of all its identified subfeatures (e.g., “here is its head, legs, and tail”
would be counted for three additional locations). In addition, she counted
objects and their subfeatures that were embedded within Whole responses.
Once the frequencies for all objects and elements were counted for a card, the
locations that cumulatively accounted for 20% or more of all mentions were con-
sidered common and those that cumulatively accounted for less were considered
rare. This approach to counting location frequency does not directly convert into
the approaches used by others.
mutually exclusive. Given that many W responses are quite
common (e.g., Card V), designating exhaustive responses with
a code (W) that does not denote typicality ignores useful infor-
mation, as does designating typical responses with a code (D)
that ignores the commonness of whole responses. Similarly, the
fact that a multiobject response exhausts the inkblot does not
preclude the use of conventional or unconventional locations
for the objects within that response. A W response could be
constructed from the combination of multiple D locations,
multiple Dd locations, or a combination of D and Dd locations.
Information about the typicality of a person’s perceptual focus
in such responses, which might be interpretively useful, is lost
when the location of those embedded objects is ignored and the
overall response is just coded W.
As a first step toward better understanding inkblot location
use on the Rorschach, we initiated a contemporary review of loca-
tion frequency data according to standard coding guidelines. This
analysis is designed with two primary aims. The first is to explore
contemporary location frequency data from protocols gathered
using R-PAS administration guidelines. Our main interest is to
document the frequency of use of numbered locations, although
we also examine whether any currently unnumbered locations
occur with notable frequency. Second, we examine the consis-
tency of location use frequencies by computing the same informa-
tion across multiple samples of CS data, encompassing patients
and nonpatients, and children and adults. To quantify cross-sam-
ple consistency, we then correlate the location use information
across samples. Understanding contemporary location use fre-
quency in R-PAS protocols and its consistency with historical CS
data and generalizability across types of samples could enhance
the value of location data in predicting external criteria. For
instance, it might lead to updated D and Dd classifications, or
more fully dimensional indices of location typicality.
Methods
R-PAS sample
Location data were obtained for a sample of 4,786 R-PAS
protocols encompassing 112,485 responses. The data were
obtained from the R-PAS coauthors, as well as other R-PAS
users who were credentialed as proficient in administration
and coding and provided explicit permission to use their
data following our request. Examiners resided in Brazil, Italy,
Romania, and the United States. Protocols were obtained
from the R-PAS scoring program, which by design does not
store much specific information for a protocol. To ensure
the responses were from people assessed using R-PAS guide-
lines, only responses from protocols with 16 to 40 responses
were included. In addition, to exclude responses from proto-
cols that might have been coded by more than one person or
shared between examiners, the responses from any duplicate
protocols were omitted. This sample also does not include
any of the R-PAS normative data, which were collected using
CS administration guidelines.
This sample contains a mix of clinical and nonclinical
respondents, with nonclinical individuals typically being partic-
ipants in research. Examiners are not required to enter specific
gender, age, or level of education information with protocols.

However, 80.3% of the cases had data on gender, 69.9% had
data on age, and 50.0% had data on education. Using that infor-
mation, 50.5% of respondents were female; age ranged from 5
to 100 years, with M D 27.4 and SD D 16.0; and education
ranged from 1 to 25 years, with M D 10.9 and SD D 5.0. The
number of responses per protocol had M D 23.5 and SD D 4.1,
which is very close to the adult nonpatient norms (M D 24.2,
SD D 4.7; Meyer et al., 2011).
R-PAS location coding requires that W, D, or Dd be entered
on each response. In addition, if a D or Dd location is selected,
the program prompts the examiner to enter one or more loca-
tion numbers in an accompanying location number text field,
and designates the coding as in error if that information is not
provided. That text field also can be used for entering informa-
tion about W responses, although doing so is not required. In
addition to specifying multiple location numbers, the text field
can be used to specify unnumbered Dd locations. Typically,
unnumbered locations are specified using just the number 99
or by designating combinations of two or more numbered loca-
tions (e.g., “99 D W-D7” or “7C3”). We extracted the standard
D and Dd location numbers from the text field, as well as any
specifications for unnumbered 99 areas. Location numbers that
might have been entered with W responses were not counted.
Comprehensive System comparison samples
The child and adult nonpatient CS samples used in this
research are a subset of the samples that were included in the
Special Supplement on International Reference Samples for the
CS that was published in the Journal of Personality Assessment
(Shaffer, Erdberg, & Haroian, 2007) and contributed to the
Composite International Reference Values (Meyer, Erdberg, &
Shaffer, 2007; Meyer, Shaffer, Erdberg, & Horn, 2015). The
original study authors shared response-level data files with the
second author to facilitate additional research either before or
shortly after the publication of the Special Supplement. The
clinical samples of CS protocols used here also were shared
with the second author, and used in other publications.
All protocols were scored using standard RIAP software
(versions 2, 3, 4, or 5). This software does not require examiners
to include location numbers for D or Dd locations. In addition,
when a location number is specified, only one number can be
entered for a response. Thus, examiners have to pick what loca-
tion was most important to the response. Protocols were
retained only if they included a location number for at least
90% of the responses, with W location codes assigned a location
number value of zero. In 11 of the 17 samples, all protocols
were retained. For the other six samples, we retained 99.6%,
99.3%, 93.9%, 91.6%, 87.8%, or 30.5% of the original protocols.
In instances when the data set we analyzed differs from the data
set described in the source publication, we note how the sam-
ples differ and report the published demographic data as an
estimate of the demographic makeup of the sample used.
Nonclinical adults
Argentina
This sample includes data from all 506 nonpatient adults in
the Gran La Plata area in Argentina collected by Lunazzi et al.
CONTEMPORARY DATA ON THE LOCATION OF RESPONSE OBJECTS 3
(2007). Respondent age ranged from 18 to 65 years, and 44%
were male. The most common education levels were 0 to
12 years (34.1%) and 14 to 17 years (53.2%). Respondents with
any history of mental health diagnosis or treatment, criminal
arrests, or substance abuse were excluded by the original
authors.
Belgium
This sample includes data from all 100 nonpatient adult stu-
dents from the French-speaking community in Belgium col-
lected by Mormont, Thommessen, and Kever (2007). Age
ranged from 19 to 82 years and 45% were male. The most com-
mon education levels were 12 years (33%), 13 to 15 years
(41%), or 16 or more years (19%). Respondents with any his-
tory of psychiatric hospitalizations or current mental health
treatment were excluded by Mormont et al.
Comprehensive System
This sample includes data from all 450 adults from various
states in the United States collected by Exner (2007). Age
ranged from 19 to 86 years, with M D 34.9, and 49% were
male. The most common education levels were 12 years (26%),
13 to 15 years (48%), or 16C years (24%). Exner excluded
respondents who reported regular use of illegal drugs, regular
use of psychotropic medication, or more than eight lifetime
contacts with mental health providers.
Denmark
This sample includes 100 of 141 randomly selected nonpatient
adults from Copenhagen (Ivanouw, 2007). In the full sample, age
ranged from 25 to 51, and 54% were male. The most common
education levels were 11 to 12 years (23%), 13 to 16 years (49%),
and 17C years (19%). Ivanouw excluded respondents having any
contact with the psychiatric hospital system.
Finland
This composite sample includes 371 adults recruited from
(a) five Finnish towns, (b) twin pairs with body mass index dif-
ferences of at least 4 points, (c) older men in a physical fitness
program and their matched controls, and (d) a random sample
from southwestern Finland. Mattlar et al. (2007) presented data
for 343 of these adults and their demographic data are reported
here. There were more female respondents (57%), and most
(74%) had less than 12 years of education, although 10% had
16 years or more. Mattlar et al. imposed no formal exclusion
criteria, but no major psychiatric problems were noted.
France
This sample includes all 146 nonpatient adults collected by
Sultan et al. (2004). Age ranged from 20 to 65 years and 37%
were male. In terms of education, 38% had 13 to 15 years and
30% had 16 or more years. The original authors excluded
respondents who reported significant psychological distur-
bance, mental health treatment more than once, or mental
health treatment in the prior year.
Fresno
This sample includes 281 of the 283 adults recruited with an
attempt to match U.S. Census data by Shaffer, Erdberg, and
Haroian (2007). Age ranged from 17 to 70 years, with M D
33.5 and SD D 12.5. Gender was about evenly split (50.9%
female), and 24% had 16 or more years of education. Shaffer
et al. (2007) excluded respondents with psychiatric hospitaliza-
tions, psychological testing, or mental health treatment within
the past year.
4 BERRY AND MEYER
Greece
This sample includes 92 of 98 adults described by Daroglou
and Viglione (2007). Age ranged from 21 to 74 years, with M D
40.7 and SD D 16.3; 65% were female. Education levels varied;
21% had 2 to 6 years, 20% had 11 to 12 years, 36% had 13 to
16 years, and 22% had more than 16 years. The original authors
excluded respondents with any history of psychiatric hospitali-
zation, arrests, or incarceration.
Japan
This sample includes 239 of 240 nonpatient adults described
in Nakamura, Fuchigami, and Tsugawa (2007). Age ranged
from 18 to 66, with M D 31.56 and SD D 10.53; 63% were
female. Most respondents (56%) had 16 or more years of edu-
cation and Nakamura et al. (2007) excluded those with any his-
tory of psychotherapy or psychiatric treatment.
Spain
This sample includes 519 nonpatient adults from the Catalo-
nia region of Spain collected by Campo and Vilar (2007), who
reported on 517 of them. Age ranged from 18 to 59 years, with
M D 27.4 and SD D 7.31; 62% were female. Education levels
varied; 27% had 12 years or less, 18% had 13 to 15 years, and
32% had 16 or more years. Campo and Vilar excluded proto-
cols with fewer than 14 responses or that were queried insuffi-
ciently or inaccurately; they did not use psychiatric
information to exclude respondents.
U.S. elderly
This sample includes all 52 healthy, well-functioning older
adults collected by Pertchik, Shaffer, Erdberg, and Margolin
(2007). Age ranged from 60 to 80 years, with M D 68.46, and
77% were female. For education, 31% had 12 years, 29% had 13
to 15 years, and 29% had 16 or more years. Pertchik et al.
(2007) excluded respondents if they were not living indepen-
dently or if they had a history significant for medical, psychiat-
ric, assessment, or criminal criteria.
Composite adult nonpatient sample
Soon after the special supplement on CS reference values
was published (Meyer et al., 2007; Shaffer et al., 2007) a com-
posite sample of adult protocols was developed for normative
purposes (e.g., Meyer, 2008; Viglione & Meyer, 2008). The
composite sample was derived from up to 100 randomly
selected protocols from the samples just described, except for
the elderly U.S. adults. The composite sample also used 100
protocols from Romania (Dumitrascu, 2007) and all 98 from
Greece (Daroglou & Viglione, 2007), bringing the total number
of protocols to 1,098. This data set was a precursor to the 1,396
CS protocols that would later be used as norms for R-PAS
(Meyer et al., 2011). Because only four of the Romanian proto-
cols had a sufficient number of specified locations to meet
retention criteria for the current analyses, they were not
retained as a separate sample. However, those four protocols
were retained in the composite sample, resulting in a final sam-
ple size of 996 (i.e., 1,098 – 96 from Romania – 6 from Greece).
Because this sample was not independent of the other adult
samples, it was not included in our table of correlational results.
However, because it compiled data from 11 different samples, it
served as a good general estimate of primary location use
among adults for the CS. As such, it was used in a scatterplot to
visualize the general convergence of results across the CS and
R-PAS.
Clinical samples
University of Chicago
This sample includes data from 390 inpatients or outpatients
seen at the University of Chicago Hospital. Meyer (1997)
described 362 of these cases who had completed additional test-
ing measures. Based on the latter, age ranged from 17 to 72,
with M D 34.9 and SD D 11.5; and 55% were female.
University of Tennessee
This sample includes 287 outpatient adolescents and adults
evaluated in the training clinic at the University of Tennessee.
The data with sufficient location information used here are a
subset of the 327 cases described in Meyer, Riethmiller, Brooks,
Benoit, and Handler (2000). Based on Meyer et al. (2000), age
ranged from 16 to 73 years, with M D 29.9 and SD D 9.1;
56.6% were female.
Viglione composite sample.
This sample of 790 protocols was compiled by Donald Vig-
lione, including data from psychiatric, forensic, and nonclinical
respondents. The sample includes the 690 protocols described
by Viglione, Giromini, Gustafson, and Meyer (2014) and an
additional 100 nonpatient child protocols. The Viglione et al.
(2014) sample had an age M D 35.04, with SD D 11.54; 56.6%
were male.
Child and adolescent nonpatients
Denmark
This sample includes all 75 9-year-olds (55% girls) collected
by Hansen (2007). He excluded respondents with any history
of mental health treatment.
Italy
This composite sample of cases with sufficient location
information includes 139 of 456 nonpatient child and adoles-
cent respondents collected by Salcuni, Lis, Parolin, and Mazze-
schi (2007) and Lis, Salcuni, and Parolin (2007). Age ranged
from 5 to 18 years, with M D 11.9 and SD D 4.0; 53% were
female. The original authors excluded respondents based on
psychiatric, assessment, medical, and criminal criteria.
U.S.
This composite sample uses four subsamples collected under
the supervision of Thomas W. Shaffer. Each sample was small,
particularly after excluding cases with insufficient location
information (ns from 27–50), and thus they were combined to
form a general child and adolescent reference group for the
United States. The data include all 37 adolescents described by
Van Patten, Shaffer, Erdberg, and Canfield (2007). Age ranged
from 15 to 17 years, and 65% were male. Van Patten et al.
(2007) excluded respondents with any history of arrests or psy-
chiatric hospitalization. Also included are 27 of 42 Mexican
American children described by Valentino, Shaffer, Erdberg,
and Figueroa (2007). In their data, age ranged from 8 to
10 years, with M D 9.12 and SD D 0.8; and 55% were female.
They excluded participants based on low grade-point average
(GPA) or eight markers of psychological or acting out prob-
lems. Finally, we used two subsamples described by Hamel and
Shaffer (2007): 50 6- to 9-year-olds, 52% of whom were male,
and 50 10- to 12-year-olds, 48% of whom were male. They
excluded respondents for any history of psychiatric treatment
or assessment; arrests, charges, or probation; multiple

suspensions or expulsion from school; use or abuse of alcohol
or illegal drugs; or GPA of less than 2.0.
Procedure
In the R-PAS sample, use frequency was calculated as the per-
centage of responses to a card that were given at a designated
location. As described previously, Exner (1986) defined com-
mon detail locations as those used in at least 5% of protocols.
Because respondents in this sample gave an average of roughly
2.5 responses per card, locations with use frequency of about
2% in our data qualify as D responses under Exner’s criterion
(i.e., 5% of protocols/2.5 responses per card D 2% of responses
per card). In our primary analyses, we assigned a location num-
ber of 99 to all unnumbered location areas that were used.
However, in a supplemental analysis to determine whether cur-
rently unnumbered locations are used with notable frequency,
we calculated specific frequencies for the unnumbered loca-
tions. Specifically, we identified all responses coded Dd99 that
had additional location specification [e.g., “Dd99(8C9)”], and
identified the most common of these cases. Because there are
not explicit guidelines for how unnumbered locations should
be designated, the same unnumbered locations were described
in more than one way across protocols. For instance, the same
location might have been described as “1 C 12,” “99(1 C 12),”
“D12 C D1,” and so on. Consequently, all the different designa-
tions that described identical inkblot areas were aggregated to
determine the frequency of these locations.
To examine stability of location use across samples, frequen-
cies were computed for each of the primary locations specified
in the 17 CS samples. These frequencies indicated the propor-
tion of all responses to a card with that primary location num-
ber. Next, profile correlations were calculated between the
location frequencies for each of the numbered locations used
in the R-PAS protocols and the primary locations designated in
the CS protocols. To calculate these correlations,3 the location
numbers for each card formed the rows of data (i.e., the cases),
3
We used Pearson correlations to assess the consistency of linear associations
across samples rather than Spearman correlations to assess the consistency of
rank ordering, as was suggested by a reviewer. Location use indicates the actual
frequency for how often a location was selected, not their rank ordering. As
such, their magnitude is important for defining a linear relationship. The linear
association should be lowered by a greater amount when two samples have
adjacent ranked location areas that differ in use by 15% (e.g., in one sample
Location A is used in 45% of responses and Location B is used in 30% of
responses but in another sample the values are reversed) and by a lesser amount
when two samples have adjacent ranked locations that differ in use by 0.5%
(e.g., in one sample Location X is used in 1.0% of responses and Location Y is
used in 0.5% of responses but in another sample the values are reversed). The
Pearson correlation differentially penalizes the larger difference in frequency
across samples because it degrades the linear relationship between the variables
to a larger degree. In contrast, the Spearman correlation treats those two differ-
ences in frequency as equally deviant shifts in rank. Furthermore, when there are
many rare events, such as is the case with Dd locations, the Spearman correlation
will be lowered by sample to sample shifts in the cases that are at or near last
place. For many Dd locations, the frequency in the population might be just 1
use per 500 responses to a card (i.e., 0.2%) or less. Sampling from such a popula-
tion with relatively small samples of 100 to 500 protocols (that provide a pool of
250 to 1,250 responses per card) will lead to instances when the location is
observed zero to four or five times in a sample. These minor fluctuations in fre-
quency will produce differential rankings across samples that reduce the Spear-
man correlation, even though the true sample differences in frequency are
trivial.
CONTEMPORARY DATA ON THE LOCATION OF RESPONSE OBJECTS 5
the individual samples formed the columns (i.e., the variables),
and the frequency of use of each inkblot location in each sam-
ple was calculated to form the cell entries. Subsequently, each
sample’s set of frequencies was correlated with those from every
other sample. For these analyses, all Dd99 areas were combined
and counted as one 99 location area. We included these Dd99
areas for each card, which brought the total number of possible
locations up to 231. However, three locations were never used
(V-Dd24, V-Dd25, and X-Dd32), so all correlations were based
on 228 locations used at least one time in at least one of the
samples, which together encompass 9,487 protocols. To visually
summarize these correlations, we generated a scatterplot of the
R-PAS sample and the composite CS sample of 996 adult
nonpatients.
Results
Location frequency in the R-PAS sample
Table 1 lists the frequencies of response locations per card in
the R-PAS sample of 4,786 protocols, with locations used at
least 2% of the time in bold and locations used at least 10% of
the time also in italics. Location use varies considerably within
and across cards. However, the Whole location is the most
commonly used location on every card, except Card III. On
Card X, where responses are distributed slightly more evenly
across locations than on other cards, the Whole location is still
the most commonly used. Excepting Cards III and X, Whole
locations account for more than 30% of the responses to each
card, and more than 70% for Cards I and V. In part, this might
be due to the fact that a W code can be constructed in multiple
ways; a single response object could make use of the whole
card, or the response might include a number of objects that
together make use of the whole card.
Overall, D locations are more commonly used (M D 3.5%)
than Dd locations (M D 0.3%, excluding Dd99), although this
is not universal; exceptions occur on Cards I, III, VI, VII, IX,
and X, where some locations designated D occur infrequently.
The most commonly occurring D locations, drawing more
than 20% of the responses to a card, are D1 and D3 on Card III
and D1 on Card VIII. The particular ordering of the location
numbers established by Beck et al. (1961) does not cleanly fit
with these contemporary data on how frequently locations are
used.4
Given that locations used with a per-card frequency of about
2% in this table qualify as D responses under Exner’s (1986)
criterion, 17 locations from eight of the cards that are currently
classified as D areas no longer meet this criterion. Conversely,
two areas classified as Dd on Card X would now qualify for a D
designation.
As with the Whole location, a variety of different responses
can result in a Dd99 designation. Specifically, because the 99
classification encompasses all unnumbered Dd locations, the
frequencies calculated for Dd99 on all cards in Table 1 (M D
4
However, the Spearman correlation between the frequencies of the D and non-
99 Dd locations in the Total column of Table 1 and its rank position is –.84 (N D
30, p < .001) and correlations for each card range from –.44 to –.88. This sug-
gests there is some meaningful overall signal from Beck et al.’s (1961) numbering
based on their rather small sample.
6 BERRY AND MEYER

Table 1. Percent of responses to each card using each location in the R-PAS sample of 4,786 protocols (112,485 responses).

Card

Location I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X Total

W 71.5 34.3 11.7 58.5 78.1 45.6 41.7 36.6 31.3 21.6 42.7
D1 1.9 10.5 29.5 6.7 0.6 16.0 11.6 25.9 10.5 18.4 13.3
D2 4.5 7.9 8.9 2.9 1.3 13.3 10.0 4.0 6.8 6.0
D3 0.2 15.7 22.0 2.5 13.7 9.0 2.6 15.0 2.2 8.2
D4 7.8 3.0 5.0 4.4 3.0 5.8 8.2 2.9 2.6 4.3
D5 11.4 3.3 2.3 3.4 2.0 6.2 2.4 0.7 3.2
D6 18.9 4.9 1.5 1.4 1.7 5.6 8.7 4.4 4.7
D7 2.6 9.2 7.7 1.8 4.4 1.0 8.2 3.6
D8 0.8 2.1 0.2 4.1 8.4 6.2 2.2
D9 15.4 1.5 3.1 2.4 9.8 3.3
D10 4.6 1.1 7.9 1.5
D11 5.7 7.5 1.4
D12 1.5 1.1 4.7 0.8
D13 3.0 0.3
D14 1.9 0.2
D15 4.6 0.5
Dd21 1.0 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.6 0.7 1.0 2.6 0.7
Dd22 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 1.7 1.6 0.8 1.9 3.8 1.2
Dd23 0.1 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.2 0.9 1.5 0.1 0.6 0.4
Dd24 0.3 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.3
Dd25 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.5 0.1 0.1
Dd26 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.2
Dd27 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.1
Dd28 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.0 0.1
Dd29 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.3 0.2
Dd30 0.2 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2
Dd31 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.2 0.2 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.3
Dd32 0.1 1.0 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.2
Dd33 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 1.5 0.9 0.3 0.4 0.4
Dd34 0.2 1.8 0.5 1.1 0.1 0.4
Dd35 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.0 0.2
Dd99 8.6 6.9 7.8 9.8 6.3 8.2 5.2 6.9 10.0 8.3 7.8

Note. R-PAS D Rorschach Performance Assessment System. Values indicate the percentage of responses to each card using that location. For example, 71.5% of all
responses to Card I (“I” column) make use of the Whole location (“W” row). Location numbers that don’t exist on a given card are represented by a blank cell. Bold values
indicate locations used in at least 2% of all responses to the card; values that are both italicized and shown in bold indicate locations used in at least 10% of all
responses to the card.

7.8%) are not comparable to the frequencies that apply to a sin-
gle designated area. However, one unnumbered Dd99 location
did occur with notable frequency: the combination of 1 C 12
on Card X. This location was specified by examiners 55 times,
making up about 0.44% of all responses to Card X. Although
this is a small percentage, it is a higher value than most of the
currently numbered Dd locations to that card. This was
the only unnumbered location to be specified with such a nota-
ble frequency. The next most frequent unnumbered area was
the combination of the 8 C 3 areas on Card IX, which occurred
just 18 times, making up 0.16% of all responses to that card.
Cross-sample and cross-system consistency in location
frequency
We do not provide specific frequencies for the use of each loca-
tion in the 17 CS samples. Instead, Table 2 lists the profile cor-
relations between those samples and the R-PAS sample.
Table 2 is organized by population type, and then alphabetically
by sample name. The R-PAS sample is a mixed clinical and
nonclinical sample so it is listed with the clinical samples, but
adjacent to the nonpatient adult samples.
Overall, these correlations indicate very strong cross-sample
and cross-system consistency in the frequency with which loca-
tion areas are used in generating Rorschach responses. Across
all off-diagonal correlations, the average is .96. Among the
nonclinical adult samples, all correlations are at or above r D
.93, with the average being .97. Among the clinical samples, all
correlations are at or above r D .97, with an average of .98.
Among the child and adolescent samples, all correlations are at
or above r D .90, with the average being .93.5
The lowest correlation in the table is .86, occurring between
Exner’s (2007) data and the U.S. youth sample. On average, the
sample having the lowest correlations with the others, given in
the bottom row, is also for the U.S. youth sample. These lower
coefficients are due to Hamel and Shaffer’s (2007) subsamples,
which used an atypical administration decision when collecting
records. Participants were asked to very precisely outline the
locations of their responses with their fingers (Hamel & Shaffer,
2007), which led to an elevation of Dd codes and a suppression
of D and W codes that did not generalize to other samples
(Meyer et al., 2007).6
5
Because demographic data were not available for the full R-PAS sample, we also
ran a control analysis correlating location use in protocols with both age and
gender available (n D 3,296; responses D 78,435) and in protocols that lacked
one or both (n D 1,490; responses D 34,050). The correlation of .99 indicates
that undocumented demographic factors do not systematically influence loca-
tion use in this sample.
6
Examining those 100 protocols on their own, they have correlations ranging
from .76 to .90 with the other 17 samples, with an average of just .83. All coeffi-
cients were lowered by the atypical abundance of Dd99 locations in the Hamel
and Shaffer (2007) protocols.
 CONTEMPORARY DATA ON THE LOCATION OF RESPONSE OBJECTS 7

Table 2. Correlations of location use frequency by card for 228 locations across 18 R-PAS or CS samples.

Adult nonpatient Clinical Youth nonpatient

Samples N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1 Argentina 506 1.0 .98 .96 .97 .98 .98 .96 .96 .96 .98 .96 .98 .97 .96 .97 .96 .96 .90
2 Belgium 100 .98 1.0 .96 .98 .97 .98 .97 .96 .97 .98 .96 .99 .98 .97 .97 .97 .96 .92
3 CS (Exner) 450 .96 .96 1.0 .96 .96 .96 .93 .94 .94 .95 .93 .97 .96 .95 .95 .95 .95 .86
4 Denmark 100 .97 .98 .96 1.0 .98 .98 .98 .97 .98 .98 .97 .98 .99 .98 .98 .96 .96 .93
5 Finland 371 .98 .97 .96 .98 1.0 .97 .96 .96 .97 .98 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .95 .95 .90
6 France 146 .98 .98 .96 .98 .97 1.0 .97 .97 .98 .97 .95 .98 .98 .98 .98 .98 .98 .91
7 Fresno 281 .96 .97 .93 .98 .96 .97 1.0 .98 .98 .98 .96 .96 .99 .98 .99 .96 .95 .97
8 Greece 92 .96 .96 .94 .97 .96 .97 .98 1.0 .97 .95 .95 .97 .99 .98 .99 .97 .98 .94
9 Japan 239 .96 .97 .94 .98 .97 .98 .98 .97 1.0 .97 .96 .97 .99 .99 .99 .97 .97 .94
10 Spain 519 .98 .98 .95 .98 .98 .97 .98 .95 .97 1.0 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .96 .94 .94
11 U.S. elderly 52 .96 .96 .93 .97 .97 .95 .96 .95 .96 .97 1.0 .96 .96 .96 .95 .93 .92 .93
12 R-PAS 4,786 .98 .99 .97 .98 .97 .98 .96 .97 .97 .97 .96 1.0 .98 .98 .97 .98 .97 .92
13 Chicago 390 .97 .98 .96 .99 .97 .98 .99 .99 .99 .97 .96 .98 1.0 .99 .99 .98 .98 .94
14 Tennessee 287 .96 .97 .95 .98 .97 .98 .98 .98 .99 .97 .96 .98 .99 1.0 .99 .97 .98 .94
15 Viglione 790 .97 .97 .95 .98 .97 .98 .99 .99 .99 .97 .95 .97 .99 .99 1.0 .98 .98 .94
16 Denmark 75 .96 .97 .95 .96 .95 .98 .96 .97 .97 .96 .93 .98 .98 .97 .98 1.0 .98 .92
17 Italy 139 .96 .96 .95 .96 .95 .98 .95 .98 .97 .94 .92 .97 .98 .98 .98 .98 1.0 .90
18 U.S. 164 .90 .92 .86 .93 .90 .91 .97 .94 .94 .94 .93 .92 .94 .94 .94 .92 .90 1.0
M .96 .97 .95 .97 .96 .97 .97 .97 .97 .97 .95 .97 .98 .97 .97 .96 .96 .93

Note. R-PAS D Rorschach Performance Assessment System; CS D Comprehensive System. This table is organized by population type (nonclinical adult, clinical, nonclinical
child and adolescent), and then alphabetically with the exception of the R-PAS sample, which is a mix of nonpatients and patients so is placed between those sections.
The average correlation coefficient for each sample with every other sample is provided in the bottom row.

Across samples, the strongest correlations are among the
four adult clinical samples and then also between those samples
and many of the adult nonpatient samples. It is important to
keep in mind that the R-PAS sample counted all instances of D
or Dd location use, although for the CS only the primary loca-
tion was indicated in a multicomponent D or Dd response.
Frequencies of individual locations across all cards
Figure 1 provides a scatterplot of the R-PAS sample with the
composite CS sample. Across all 228 locations the correlation
between samples is r D .989. The labels in Figure 1 identify the
12 most commonly used locations, with a two-digit card num-
ber followed by a two-digit location number using 00 to desig-
nate W locations.
The most commonly used locations in both samples are the
Whole location on Cards V and I, followed by the Whole loca-
tion on Card IV. These can be considered “super-locations,”
drawing 60% to more than 70% of all responses to each card.
Following these three super-locations is a cluster of frequent
locations that includes the Whole location on each of the
remaining cards with the exception of Card III, the D1 loca-
tions on Cards III and VIII, and the D3 location on Card III.
Although we identify the D3 to Card III as being part of this
second cluster, one also could argue there is a reasonable break
or gap above it, or perhaps above the W location to Card X. It
is more evident, however, that below these two locations, the
remaining locations are on a rather undifferentiated contin-
uum, stretching from those pulling about 20% of all responses
to a card to those pulling virtually no responses to a card.
Before examining this continuum in more depth, three other
features of Figure 1 deserve note. First, the locations that garner
30% or more of the responses to a card fall along the line of
perfect fit graphed on Figure 1, with no trend for locations to
be notably above or below that line. Second, below frequencies
of 30% on both axes, the data tell a different story. Except for a
small cluster of locations that fall above the line in the range
between 5% and 15% on the R-PAS axis, the other locations fall
on the line or below it. Thus, if a regression line was fit to the
data below 30% on either axis, the slope would be less than the
slope of the plotted line. This is because most of the locations
are used more often in the R-PAS sample than in the CS data.
For instance, D3 to Card III is used in about 23% of all
responses given to that card in the R-PAS sample but it is used
in just 13% of the responses given to Card III in the CS data.
This pattern is due to the fact that the CS data could only report
a single location for each response but the R-PAS data could
report all locations that were used in a response. Third, the
exception to this pattern occurs for Dd99 areas. Almost all of
the location areas that fall above the line of perfect fit for the
cluster of locations in the range from 5% to 15% on the R-PAS
axis are Dd99 areas. Most likely, this is due to the fact that R-
PAS recognizes imprecise boundaries for many numbered D
and Dd areas that lack complete contours (Meyer et al., 2011),
which could increase the use of numbered areas and decrease
use of seeming 99 areas.
Figure 2 visualizes location use in just the R-PAS sample.
The frequency with which each location is used per card is plot-
ted on the vertical axis, and its descending rank order (i.e., most
common, second most common, third most common) is plot-
ted on the horizontal axis. The plot resembles a Zipf distribu-
tion, similar to what is formed when the frequency of
individual objects seen in the inkblots are plotted against their
rank (see Meyer et al., 2011). Alternatively, it could be consid-
ered like a scree plot from principal components analysis or
factor analysis (e.g., Hoelzle & Meyer, 2013), which plots the
relative size of an eigenvalue against its rank order. Perhaps the
most remarkable feature of Figure 2 is the absence of jumps or
discontinuities in the line graph. Unlike a scree plot that would
show a discontinuity differentiating genuine dimensions from
random noise, there is no gap or discontinuity differentiating
typical or common locations from rare locations. To the
8 BERRY AND MEYER

Figure 1. Use of individual locations in the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) sample (n D 4,786) and the composite Comprehensive System (CS) nonpa-
tient sample (n D 996). Note. Each point represents one of the 228 individual locations examined. For those that are labeled, a two-digit card number is followed by a
two-digit location number, with “00” indicating the Whole location. For example, “C01L00” indicates the Whole location on Card I. The diagonal line indicates the line of
perfect correspondence. The correlation of location use across all cards in these two samples is r D .989.

contrary, there is a smooth progression from the most com- to Exner’s (1986) cut-point differentiating D from Dd. Viewed
monly used locations to the least commonly used locations. from the perspective of all locations simultaneously, as illus-
Superimposed on Figure 2 is a dotted line identifying 2.0% trated in Figure 2, it is easy to see that this is an arbitrary cut
of all responses to a card, which is the equivalent in our sample point on the location use continuum, as there is a smooth

Figure 2. Plot of location use by card in the Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) sample (n D 4,786) with the rank ordering of location use. Note. The his-
torical benchmark for differentiating a common D location from an uncommon Dd location is use by at least 5% of people, which roughly equates to at least 2% of all
responses given to a card, as denoted by the dotted line.

progression of location use above and below that point. In turn,
this suggests that more might be gained by fully dimensionaliz-
ing location use frequency across all cards, rather than by
attempting to precisely differentiate a D from a Dd.
Discussion
This study draws on a heterogeneous sample of 4,786 R-PAS
protocols that documented the coded location(s) used for each
response, and 4,701 CS protocols from 17 diverse samples that
documented the most salient coded location used for each
response. These samples augment the three main empirical
studies that previously examined the location of responses
given to the Rorschach, from Hertz (1937, N D 300; 1970, N D
1,050), through Beck et al. (1950), N D 157), to Exner (1986, N
D 3,000). Importantly, however, except for Beck’s early
research with a relatively small sample, no studies over the last
seven decades have provided specific frequencies for all their
designated locations. Thus, Table 1 and Figure 2 provide
unique contributions to the literature. In addition, Hertz’s
research focused on nonpatient adolescents; Beck et al.’s
research used adult nonpatients; and Exner’s research used a
mix of patients, nonpatients, adults, and youth. No previous
research has examined the generalizability of location use
across different types of samples or across different Rorschach
systems. Thus, Table 2 and Figure 1 also provide unique contri-
butions to the literature.
These data provide an understanding of the frequency with
which inkblot locations are used by contemporary respondents
and they lead to three primary insights. First, the Whole loca-
tion is used with high frequency on every card, suggesting that
the interpretation of W should be expanded to include
conventionality. Second, location use frequency falls on a
smooth continuum without clear differentiation between typi-
cal and atypical locations. This suggests that a fully dimensional
measure of location typicality could more effectively measure
perceptual style than the current categorical coding. Third, the
dimension of location use frequency is remarkably consistent
across different types of samples and different Rorschach
administration and coding systems. These points are more fully
elaborated later, followed by implications that flow from them.
Given the very high frequency with which the W location is
used on each card, the interpretive meaning of the W% variable
in R-PAS should be updated. Currently, W% is interpreted as a
measure of global, holistic perception and, in some instances,
tendency toward sophisticated and integrative cognition. How-
ever, this tendency to see the big picture by using the W loca-
tion also is quite common, such that W is the most commonly
used location on every card except Card III. Consequently, W%
also should be interpreted as a measure of perceptual conven-
tionality, similar to the Popular variable, in addition to its cur-
rent interpretation. Stated differently, it is conventional or
normative for people to make sense of the full stimulus. In add-
ing this interpretation, it still remains the case that there are
quantitative and qualitative differences between generating a W
response to Cards I or V versus Cards IX or X.
As noted in the introduction, the current categorical location
coding guidelines do not take into account the typicality of indi-
vidual response objects that are embedded within multiobject W
CONTEMPORARY DATA ON THE LOCATION OF RESPONSE OBJECTS 9
responses. As such, no information is gathered about the percep-
tual typicality of the subelements making up a multiobject W
response. Given that W is the most frequently used location on
every card but one, a considerable amount of information about
the card pull to use specific locations is likely obscured. Thus,
one direction for future research is to explore the extent to which
counts of location use change as a function of counting the
embedded component locations used within W responses (e.g.,
for Card I, counting how often within a W response there is an
object identified at D1, D2, D3, D4, etc.). If those additional data
help improve the measurement of typical and atypical percep-
tion, it might be better to code the location qualities of exhaus-
tiveness and atypicalness independently of one another, rather
than as part of three mutually exclusive and exhaustive
categories.
Initially, a salient aim of ours was to obtain an updated
understanding of what constituted D and Dd locations. In the
R-PAS records, 17 locations currently designated as common
D areas no longer meet Exner’s (1986) criterion for D, and 2
locations currently designated as uncommon Dd areas do meet
this criterion. Furthermore, one currently unnumbered loca-
tion, the combination of D1 and D12 on Card X, occurs often
enough that it probably should be designated with its own
number on this card.
However, frequency of location use in these data falls on a
remarkably smooth continuum. As is evident in Figure 2, the
existing cutoff point separating D from Dd responses is arbi-
trary, and there is no apparent cutoff point in the data at which
common and uncommon locations can be readily distinguished
from one another. As such, adopting a fully dimensional mea-
sure of location typicality would be more appropriate than
updating the existing categorical descriptions, and it might also
improve the prediction of external criteria.
The pattern of location frequency varies by card in ways
roughly consistent with the visual complexity of the stimuli.
Simpler and more unified inkblots with less color variation,
such as Cards I and V, tend to provoke more Whole responses,
whereas frequencies are more broadly distributed on more
visually complex cards, such as Cards III and X. This is particu-
larly notable on Card III, which draws fewer W responses than
any other card, and on Card X, where use frequencies are more
evenly distributed across locations than on any other card.
The correlations of location frequency across samples gener-
ally indicate that location use is quite consistent across ages,
cultures, languages, and clinical or nonclinical populations.
This suggests that particular inkblot locations lend themselves
to perceptual interpretation in consistent ways across people.
This might be a somewhat unsurprising result, given the R-
PAS decision to develop international norms (Meyer et al.,
2011), and prior research indicating no reliable differences in
Rorschach scores on the basis of gender, ethnicity, adult age,
country of origin, or culture (Meyer et al., 2007; Meyer, Giro-
mini, Viglione, Reese, & Mihura, 2015; Meyer, Shaffer, et al.,
2015). Correlations were also quite high between the R-PAS
sample and samples gathered using CS administration and cod-
ing guidelines; the average of all correlations between the
R-PAS sample and the CS samples was r D .96, and the correla-
tion between the R-PAS sample and the composite of CS sam-
ples was r D .99.
10 BERRY AND MEYER
The weakest relationships between samples occurred when
data were collected by just one examiner and the examiner col-
lecting protocols followed idiosyncratic administration guide-
lines by asking respondents to precisely outline the locations of
all their responses (Hamel & Shaffer, 2007). CS administration
guidelines give examiners freedom to structure the gathering of
location data in such a way. That is, the CS guidelines do not
clearly tell examiners to solicit outlines, nor do they clearly tell
examiners not to solicit outlines. This ambiguity fosters some
uncertainty about what is best practice.7 Nonetheless, when a
respondent’s attention is drawn to the specific contours of the
ink during the clarification phase, he or she might become
more cautious and detail-oriented than when initially selecting
percepts, causing his or her percept to be documented in a
more atypical manner than when initially perceived.
The basic perceptual process of selecting the inkblot loca-
tions that will be organized into a response might be useful for
assigning weights to other codes, and particularly Form Quality
codes. R-PAS Form Quality codes are measures of perceptual
conventionality and accuracy. Each response either is desig-
nated FQ-, indicating infrequent and inaccurate perception;
FQu, indicating intermediate-level frequency or accuracy; FQo,
indicating relatively frequent and accurate perception; or FQn,
indicating that the response does not contain any formed
object, making it inappropriate for a Form Quality judgment.
Form Quality percentage scores are calculated to measure the
overall conventionality and accuracy of an examinee’s percepts,
which serves as an indicator for reality testing ability and
degree of psychopathology (Meyer et al., 2011; Mihura et al.,
2013). Given that different inkblot locations are used with dif-
fering but consistent frequencies and that particular locations
lend themselves to particular perceptual interpretations, the
inkblot location used to formulate a response might speak to
the predictive value of that response’s Form Quality.
For example, the D3 location on Card III is used in 16.0% of
all responses to the card, suggesting that it has clear, perceptu-
ally useful critical bits and is commonly identified by respond-
ents as being perceptually important. The Dd30 location on
Card III, meanwhile, is identified in only about 0.1% of all
responses to this card, indicating that most people do not take
the features of this location to be suggestive of anything in par-
ticular. As a result, an examinee who uses the clear critical bits
of Card III’s D3 location to construct percepts with distorted
form quality is likely to be prone to more distorted and atypical
perception than a person who provides a response with dis-
torted form quality only to the less-clear perceptual features of
Dd30. Under current coding procedures, these two FQ- codes
are given the same weight. It would be beneficial to conduct
research examining whether the dimensional conventionality
of locations documented here serves as a moderator of FQ–
when predicting psychotic disorder criteria.
7 cents, clinical respondents, and nonclinical respondents.
R-PAS guidelines address this specifically. Objects are identified by the inkblot’s
critical bits, and apart from the structure provided by those bits, the contours of
the identified object can be very imprecisely perceived. For instance, the canine
profile often reported to Card I D7 is defined by the triangular snout at Dd34
and the ear-like contours at Dd28, but the back of that canine’s head is not per-
ceived as having a precise boundary because there is no specific contour in the
inkblot that closes that perceptual gestalt.
The Popular code, which is assigned to a response when
it includes a very common percept at a particular inkblot
location, could similarly be contextualized with location fre-
quency data. For instance, the Popular response to Card IX
occurs at a location that is used in 14.4% of responses to
the card, whereas the Popular response to Card I occurs at
a location used in 71.4% of responses to the card. A Popu-
lar response on Card I, then, is considerably more common
and obvious than a Popular response on Card IX, but the
two Popular codes are currently weighted the same. It is
possible, however, that the absence of Popular is more pre-
dictive of psychopathology when it is weighted by the com-
monness of the location.
The R-PAS WD–% score attempts to use inkblot location
frequency in this way, by evaluating the Form Quality of only
those responses that are given to the W and D locations. This
measure is used as a complement to the FQ–% code. Whereas
FQ–% measures an examinee’s general tendency toward dis-
tortion or misinterpretation of his or her environment, WD–
% measures an examinee’s tendency toward distortion or mis-
interpretation of even those stimuli that are more obvious and
commonly used (Meyer et al., 2011). At present, the research
literature does not indicate WD–% provides any better predic-
tion than FQ–% (Mihura et al., 2013). However, the current
dichotomous classification of inkblot locations into W or D
does not accurately represent contemporary location use fre-
quency. These data show how dramatically different some D
locations are from others and how different D locations tend
to be from the even more common W locations. These find-
ings thus suggest that location frequency could be further
used in evaluating perceptual accuracy and conventionality by
referencing contemporary inkblot location frequency data. For
instance, instead of computing FQ–% for all W and D loca-
tions, following Figure 2, it might be more reasonable to com-
pute this percentage for just the 28 or so locations that are
used in at least 10% of the responses given to a card, or to
simply weight FQ–% by the frequency of the locations con-
tributing to it.
Limitations
One limitation of our study is reliance on archival data. Com-
plete and specific demographic data for each case were not
available, nor were full responses to code. As such, reliability
analyses could not be conducted and coding accuracy could
not be verified. However, the clear reproducibility of results
across all samples and subsamples speaks to the reliability of
the location codes and location numbers that were assigned in
both the R-PAS sample and the CS samples, as well as their
robustness across demographic factors. Furthermore, the high
correlations of location use across samples attest to the broad
generalizability of these results; the R-PAS sample correlates
very strongly with CS samples of adults, children and adoles-
As another limitation, the CS data were obtained using a scor-
ing program that only allowed for one location to be designated,
which causes some locations to go uncounted in multiobject D
or Dd responses. If these additional locations were counted sys-
tematically, the correlations among CS locations and between CS

and R-PAS location frequencies likely would have been stronger.
Finally, as mentioned earlier, the locations for objects embedded
within W responses were not counted, and as such full frequency
data on these locations are not available.
Conclusions and implications for future research
This study provides a contemporary account of the frequency
with which each inkblot location is used on the Rorschach in a
large sample of R-PAS protocols. It also provides evidence that
these location frequencies are quite consistent across samples
and between R-PAS and the CS. These data indicate that a
number of inkblot locations could be categorized differently as
D or Dd locations. However, the data also suggest that there is
no clear cutoff point between the locations that are commonly
used and those that are not, indicating that location typicality
might be best conceptualized in dimensional rather than cate-
gorical form. Particularly given the consistency with which
these contemporary location frequency data are seen to occur
across samples, these dimensional data might be used to weight
Form Quality codes. Alternatively, a Common Locations Form
Quality score, conceptually similar to the existing WD-% but
using updated and dimensional location data, might incremen-
tally improve the prediction of external criteria. Further
research should examine whether such variables can add incre-
mental validity to existing measures of Form Quality.
These data also provide evidence that the use of the Whole
inkblot location is an indicator of conventional perception, in
addition to reflecting a global, holistic perceptual style. The
interpretation of the W% variable should be expanded to incor-
porate perceptual conventionality, somewhat similar to the
interpretation of Popular responses.
Finally, the frequency data provided here do not include
component locations within W responses. Thus, the frequency
data provided here accurately represent location use as mea-
sured by the existing coding guidelines. However, it would be
useful for further research to determine whether identifying the
location of objects embedded within W responses provides an
improved understanding of card pull, and perhaps better data
on perceptual style.
Acknowledgments
This research was conducted in part with data provided by R-PAS
co-authors and others credentialed as proficient in R-PAS coding and
administration. We thank Susan Berenzweig, Gabriela Dima, Robert Erard,
Fabiana Freitas, Jonna Fries, Luciano Giromini, James Gormally, Mauro Di
Lorenzo, and Donald Viglione for the additional data they contributed. We
also thank the researchers who donated CS data back in 2008 or before,
including Vera Campo, Stamatia Daroglou, Nicolae Dumitrascu, John
Exner, Mel Hamel, Len Handler, Kim Hansen, Jan Ivanouw, Adriana Lis,
Helena Lunazzi, Carl-Erik Mattlar, Christian Mormont, Noriko Naka-
mura, Kevin Pertchik, Silvia Salcuni, Thomas Shaffer, Serge Sultan, Mary
Ann Valentino, and Katherine Van Patten.
ORCID
Benjamin A. Berry http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3227-1334
CONTEMPORARY DATA ON THE LOCATION OF RESPONSE OBJECTS 11
References
Beck, S. J., Beck, A. G., Levitt, E. E., & Molish, H. B. (1961). Rorschach’s
test: Basic processes (Vol. 1, 3rd ed.). Oxford, UK: Grune & Stratton.
Beck, S. J., Rabin, A. I., Thiesen, W. G., Molish, H., & Thetford, W. N.
(1950). The normal personality as projected in the Rorschach test. Jour-
nal of Psychology, 30, 241–298. doi:10.1080/00223980.1950.9916066
Campo, V., & Vilar, N. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System data for
a sample of 517 adults from Spain (Barcelona). Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S149–S153. doi:10.1080/00223890701583432
Daroglou, S., & Viglione, D. J. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System
data for a sample of 98 adult nonpatients from Greece. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 89, S61–S66. doi:10.1080/00223890701582988
Dumitrascu, N. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System data for a sam-
ple of 111 adult nonpatients from Romania. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S142–S148. doi:10.1080/00223890701583648
Exner, J. E. (1974). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. Vol. 1: Basic
foundations. New York, NY: Wiley.
Exner, J. E. (1986). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. Vol. 1: Basic
foundations (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Exner, J. E. (1996). Critical bits and the Rorschach response process. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 67, 464–477. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa6703_3
Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. Volume 1:
Basic foundations (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Exner, J. E. (2007). A new U.S. adult nonpatient sample. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 89, S154–S158. doi:10.1080/00223890701583523
Hamel, M., & Shaffer, T. W. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System
data for 100 nonpatient children from the United States in two age
groups. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, S174–S182. doi:10.1080/
00223890701583457
Hansen, K. G. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System data for a sample
of 75 Danish 9-year-old children: A pilot study. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S52–S56. doi:10.1080/00223890701582947
Hertz, M. R. (1937). The normal details in the Rorschach ink-blot tests.
Rorschach Research Exchange, 1, 104–118. doi:10.1080/
08934037.1937.10381493
Hertz, M. R. (1970). Frequency tables for scoring Rorschach responses (5th
ed.). New York, NY: University Press.
Hoelzle, J. B., & Meyer, G. J. (2013). Exploratory factor analysis: Basics and
beyond. In J. A. Schinka, W. F. Velicer, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Hand-
book of psychology: Research methods in psychology (pp. 164–188).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Ivanouw, J. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System data for a sample of
141 adult nonpatients from Denmark. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 89, S42–S51. doi:10.1080/00223890701583671
Lis, A., Salcuni, S., & Parolin, L. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System
data for a sample of 116 preadolescent and 117 adolescent nonpatients
from Italy. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, S91–S96. doi:10.1080/
00223890701583259
Lunazzi, H. A., Urrutia, M. I., de La Fuente, M. G., Elias, D., Fernandez, F.,
& de La Fuente, S. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System data for a
sample of 506 adult nonpatients from Argentina. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S7–S12. doi:10.1080/00223890701582806
Mattlar, C. E., Forsander, C., Carlsson, A., Norrlund, L., Vesala, P., Lep-
p€anen, T., … & Alanen, E. (2007). Rorschach Comprehensive System
data for a sample of 343 adults from Finland. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S57–S60. doi:10.1080/00223890701582962
Meyer, G. J. (1997). On the integration of personality assessment methods:
The Rorschach and MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 297–
330. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa6802_5
Meyer, G. J. (2008). Complexity stratified adult CS norms from the Interna-
tional 1098 Sample. Toledo, OH: Department of Psychology, University
of Toledo.
Meyer, G. J., Erdberg, P., & Shaffer, T. W. (2007). Toward international
normative reference data for the Comprehensive System. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 89, S201–S216. doi:10.1080/00223890701629342
Meyer, G. J., Giromini, L., Viglione, D. J., Reese, J. B., & Mihura, J. L.
(2015). The association of gender, ethnicity, age, and education with
12 BERRY AND MEYER
Rorschach scores. Assessment, 22, 46–64. doi:10.1177/
1073191114544358
Meyer, G. J., Riethmiller, R. J., Brooks, R. D., Benoit, W. A., & Handler, L.
(2000). A replication of Rorschach and MMPI–2 convergent validity.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 175–215. doi:10.1207/
S15327752JPA7402_3
Meyer, G. J., Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Horn, S. L. (2015). Addressing
issues in the development and use of the Composite International Ref-
erence Values as Rorschach norms for adults. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 97, 330–347. doi:10.1080/00223891.2014.961603
Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P.
(2011). Rorschach Performance Assessment System: Administration,
coding, interpretation, and technical manual. Toledo, OH: R-PAS.
Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013). The
validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and
meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin,
139, 548–605. doi:10.1037/a0029406
Mormont, C., Thommessen, M., & Kever, C. (2007). Rorschach Compre-
hensive System data for a sample of 100 adult nonpatients from the
Belgian French-speaking community. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 89, S26–S34. doi:10.1080/00223890701582871
Nakamura, N., Fuchigami, Y., & Tsugawa, R. (2007). Rorschach Compre-
hensive System data for a sample of 240 adult nonpatients from Japan.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, S97–S102. doi:10.1080/
00223890701583291
Pertchik, K., Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Margolin, D. I. (2007). Ror-
schach Comprehensive System data for a sample of 52 older adult non-
patients from the United States. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89,
S166–S173. doi:10.1080/00223890701583598
Salcuni, S., Lis, A., Parolin, L., & Mazzeschi, C. (2007). Rorschach Compre-
hensive System data for two samples of nonpatient children from Italy:
75 aged 5–7 years and 148 aged 8–11 years. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S85–S90. doi:10.1080/00223890701583234
Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Haroian, J. (2007). Rorschach Comprehen-
sive System data for a sample of 283 adult nonpatients from the United
States. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, S159–S165. doi:10.1080/
00223890701583572
Sultan, S., Andronikof, A., Fouques, D., Lemmel, G., Mormont, C., Reveillere,
C., & Sa€ıas, T. (2004). Towards French language norms for the Rorschach
Comprehensive System: Preliminary results in a sample of 146 adults. Psy-
chologie Française, 49, 7–24. doi:10.1080/00223890701629342
Valentino, M. A., Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Figueroa, M. (2007).
Rorschach Comprehensive System data for a sample of 42 nonpa-
tient Mexican American children from the United States. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 89, S183–S187. doi:10.1080/
00223890701583481
Van Patten, K., Shaffer, T. W., Erdberg, P., & Canfield, M. (2007). Ror-
schach Comprehensive System data for a sample of 37 nonpatient/non-
delinquent adolescents from the United States. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 89, S188–S192. doi:10.1080/00223890701583507
Viglione, D., Giromini, L., Gustafson, M. L., & Meyer, G. J. (2014). Devel-
oping continuous variable composites for Rorschach measures of
thought problems, vigilance, and suicide risk. Assessment, 21, 42–49.
doi:10.1177/1073191112446963
Viglione, D. J., & Meyer, G. J. (2008, July). An international system as a
solution to problems in Rorschach reliability, validity, and utility. Ple-
nary session conducted at the XIXth Congress of the International Ror-
schach Society, Leuven, Belgium.