190 Personality
meeting... the three critical tests of science: understanding,
prediction,andcontrol” (p. 191; emphasis in original).
Although the appearance of several monographs on per-
sonal documents and life histories (e.g., G. W. Allport, 1942;
Dollard, 1935) suggests that these topics were salient in per-
sonality psychology during the 1930s and 1940s (Craik,
1986), these monographs reflected the interests of several
members of the SSRC, and their influence on personality
psychologists appears to have been minimal. Platt (1996)
notes that Chicago sociologist Ernest W. Burgess, who had a
particular interest in case study methods, chaired the SSRC’s
Committee on Appraisal of Research, which sponsored ap-
praisals of the use of personal documents in several dis-
ciplines (G. W. Allport, 1942; Gottschalk, Kluckhohn, &
Angell, 1945). She finds, however, that during this period
sociologists’ interest in case studies, life histories, and per-
sonal documents was declining and that attention to these
methods virtually disappeared following World War II (Platt,
1992, 1996). Plans for a third volume were apparently can-
celed; Allport (1943a) had suggested that it either present a
summary of German theories of Verstehenor review re-
search, such as Murray’s, that related case studies to psycho-
metric and experimental methods.
Hevern (1999) observes that although Allport’s mono-
graph (G. W. Allport, 1942) outsold other SSRC volumes, his
promotion of the case method was generally overlooked by
mainstream psychologists. In contrast, Allport’s argument
that the idiographic use of personal documents could meet
the three tests of science (understanding, prediction, and con-
trol) was widely cited by clinical psychologists in the debate
regarding clinical and statistical prediction that coincided
with the rapid expansion of clinical psychology during the
1940s and 1950s (Barenbaum, 1998; see Meehl, 1954). Iron-
ically, the debate focused more on clinical predictions based
on psychometric data than on the idiographic methods—
involving subjective meanings—that Allport hoped to pro-
mote (see G. W. Allport, 1962a).
Although his work on the American war effort interfered
with his plans, Allport continued to collect personal docu-
ments in hopes of interpreting and publishing them (e.g.,
G. W. Allport, 1945). Throughout his career he supported
case studies “behind the scenes,” using them in his teaching
and increasing their visibility during his term as editor of the
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology(1938–1949). In
the 1940 volume, he featured a symposium on “psychoanaly-
sis as seen by analyzed psychologists” (G. W. Allport, 1940c,
p. 3). In 1943, he initiated a special “clinical supplement”
consisting of case studies (G. W. Allport, 1943b), following it
with regular clinical issues in 1944 and 1945. Beginning in
April 1946, each issue included a section of case reports.
Allport described his solicitation and publication of case
studies as “the one distinctive contribution that I have made
during my term of editorial service” (G. W. Allport, 1949,
p. 440). He also supported the work of authors such as Jean
Evans, a reporter whose case studies appeared first in the
Journal(1948, 1950) and later in a book (1954). In her fore-
word, Evans expressed her appreciation to “Dr. Gordon W.
Allport, whose idea it was in the first place that such a book
should be written” (p. xvii).Publication TrendsContinuing an earlier trend, the number of studies of individ-
uals published both in general psychology journals and in
“personality” journals (the Journal of Abnormal and Social
PsychologyandCharacter and Personality) declined during
the 1930s and 1940s (G. W. Allport, 1940b; Shermer, 1985).
Although early volumes of Character and Personalityfea-
tured studies using biographical and archival methods (Craik,
1986), this journal was atypical. Founded in 1932 by Robert
Saudek, a European graphologist (Roback, 1935), it was
originally international in scope and emphasized “psycho-
diagnostics,” or character reading based on expressive be-
havior (G. W. Allport, 1937b), an approach that received little
attention from American researchers. Allport was on the edi-
torial board of the journal, which published the studies of
several students from his life history seminar (Cartwright &
French, 1939; Polansky, 1941). By 1945, however, the newly
renamedJournal of Personalityhad changed to reflect the
interests of American personality psychologists. The new
direction was signaled by the omission from the title of
“character,” an older term preferred by many European
psychologists (see Roback, 1927a). The proportion of studies
of individuals declined sharply between the 1930s and the
1950s (Shermer, 1985).
Even among clinical psychologists, the status of case stud-
ies remained marginal. Allport’s retirement as editor of the
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychologywas followed by
another dramatic decrease in the number of studies of indi-
viduals published in the journal (Shermer, 1985). Comment-
ing on a pioneering book of clinical case studies (Burton &
Harris, 1947), Dollard noted that it relied heavily on test ma-
terial and was not “the much-needed book of illuminating
case histories for the teacher of Abnormal Psychology”
(1948, p. 541).What Happened to Murray’s “Personological” Concepts?It seems clear that Murray’s theory and methods, as origi-
nally developed in Explorations in Personality and later