MURRAY, HENRY ALEXANDER (b. - Gale

Mulliken
Murray
was assessed by Coulson as pointing to deep, perhaps
irreconcilable, divisions among the practitioners of quantum
chemistry.
As in all scientific disciplines, quantum chemistry
evolved through time, its practice being shaped by its
founders and their immediate followers. In a 1998 paper
in Nature, the 1981 Nobel laureate Roald Hoffmann summarized
poetically the different sorts of inputs in affirming
its tradition: “American and British chemists had
secured a place for quantum mechanics in chemistry,
through the charismatic exposition of Linus Pauling, the
quieter and deep reflections of Robert Mulliken, and the
elegant, perceptive teaching of Charles Coulson” (1998, p.
750). As exemplified by Mulliken’s career, the ability to
“cross boundaries” between disciplines was, perhaps, the
most striking and permanent characteristic of those who,
like Mulliken himself, consistently contributed to the
development of quantum chemistry.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mulliken’s papers, correspondence, and other manuscript
materials are deposited in the Joseph Regenstein Library of the
University of Chicago. Letters and an interview with Mulliken,
conducted by Thomas S. Kuhn in 1964, are held in the Archives
for the History of Quantum Physics in the American Institute of
Physics and in the American Philosophical Society.
WORKS BY MULLIKEN
“Electronic Structure of Polyatomic Molecules and Valence. VI.
On the Method of Molecular Orbitals.” Journal of Chemical
Physics 3 (1935): 375–378.
“Quantum-Mechanical Methods and the Electronic Spectra and
Structure of Molecules.” Chemical Reviews 41 (1947):
201–206.
“The Path to Molecular Orbital Theory.” Pure and Applied
Chemistry 24 (1970): 203–215. One of Mulliken’s
recollections.
“Spectroscopy, Molecular Orbitals, and Chemical Bonding.”
Nobel Lectures in Chemistry 1963–1970. Amsterdam: Elsevier,
1972, pp.131–160.
Selected Papers of Robert S. Mulliken. Edited by D.A. Ramsay and
Jürgen Hinze. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Selection of Mulliken’s most important papers on molecular
structure and spectra.
Robert S. Mulliken: Life of a Scientist, an Autobiographical
Account of the Development of Molecular Orbital Theory with
an Introductory Memoir by Friedrich Hund. Edited by Bernard
J. Ransil. Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1989. Mulliken’s
autobiography, edited posthumously.
OTHER SOURCES
Assmus, Alexi. “The Americanization of Molecular Physics.”
Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 23
(1992): 1–34.
Butler, Loren. “Robert S. Mulliken and the Politics of Science
and Scientists, 1939–1946.” Historical Studies in the Physical
and Biological Sciences 25 (1994): 25–45.
Coulson, Charles Alfred. “Recent Developments in Valence
Theory.” Pure and Applied Chemistry 24 (1970): 257–287.
Gavroglu, Kostas, and Ana Simões. “The Americans, the
Germans and the Beginnings of Quantum Chemistry: The
Confluence of Diverging Traditions.” Historical Studies in the
Physical and Biological Sciences 25 (1994): 47–110.
Hoffmann, Roald, “Kenichi Fukui (1918–1998).” Nature 391
(1998): 750.
Longuet-Higgins, Hugh Christopher. “Robert Sanderson
Mulliken.” Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal
Society 35 (1990): 329–354.
Löwdin, Per-Olov, and Bernard Pullman, eds. Molecular Orbitals
in Chemistry, Physics and Biology: A Tribute to Robert S.
Mulliken. New York: Academic Press, 1964. A
commemorative volume assessing Mulliken’s contributions to
quantum chemistry.
Park, Buhm Soon. “The ‘Hyperbola of Quantum Chemistry’:
the Changing Practice and Identity of a Scientific Discipline
in the Early Years of Electronic Digital Computers,
1945–1965.” Annals of Science 60 (2003): 219–247.
Simões, Ana. “Chemical Physics and Quantum Chemistry in the
Twentieth-Century.” In Modern Physical and Mathematical
Sciences, vol. 5, edited by Mary Jo Nye. Cambridge, U.K.:
Cambridge University Press, 2003, 394–412.
———, and Kostas Gavroglu. “Quantum Chemistry qua
Applied Mathematics. The Contributions of Charles Alfred
Coulson (1910–1974).” Historical Studies in the Physical
Sciences 29 (1999): 363–406.
Ana Simões
MURRAY, HENRY ALEXANDER (b.
New York, New York, 13 May 1893; d. Cambridge, Massachusetts,
23 June 1988), psychology, personality theory, the
study of lives.
Henry Murray was a founder of personality psychology
who emphasized “person logy” or the study of lives in
his most influential book, Explorations in Personality
(1938) He was also a pioneer in personality assessment,
and co-inventor of the Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT). As director of the Harvard Psychological Clinic
beginning in 1928, and professor in Harvard’s Psychology
and then Social Relations department until 1962, Murray
trained, inspired, and provoked many who would shape
personality psychology in the decades to come.
Childhood and Education. Henry A. Murray was born in
New York City on 13 May 1893. His father, Henry
Alexander Murray Sr., was a banker; he and Murray’s
mother, F Fannie Morris Babcock, were listed in the
214 NEW DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY

Murray
Murray
Social Register. Their early houses were just off Fifth
Avenue on West 49th and West 51st Streets, and were
demolished in the 1930s to make way for Rockefeller
Center. Murray described his childhood in his autobiography
as that of “the average, privileged American boy.”
Murray had warm relations with his father, and thus
did not personally resonate to Sigmund Freud’s account of
Oedipal hostilities of a boy toward his father. Murray was
the middle of three children, with an older sister, Virginia,
born in 1890 and a younger brother, nicknamed “Mike,”
born in 1897. Murray felt that his mother favored his
older sister and younger brother, and as a child he came to
“the grievous (and valid) realization that he could count
on only a third-best portion of his mother’s love” (1967,
p. 298) This left him with a “marrow of misery and
melancholy” that he suggests sensitized him to the sufferings
of others, particularly women, and may have influenced
his later career choices of medicine and
psychotherapy. This underlying melancholy was
“repressed by pride and practically extinguished in everyday
life by a counteracting disposition of sanguine and
expansive buoyancy,” yet he was left with “an affinity for
the darker, blinder strata of feeling,” which drew him to
tragic themes in literature and psychology. In psychology,
his interest was not in the psychophysics of perception,
but in following a “bent of curiosity toward all profound
experiences of individual men and women” (Murray, 1981
[1959], p. 8).
Murray attended prep school at Groton and then
Harvard College from 1911 to 1915. He majored in history
but was not a diligent student, and was proudest of
being the captain of the Harvard crew team. He was also
active in many social organizations, elected during his
junior year to lead the Phillips Brooks House Association,
a social service organization for Harvard students. His
only exposure to psychology in college was two lectures by
Hugo Munsterberg on the senses, which sent him looking
for the nearest exit. He later joked to his biographer in
1970 that he had “majored in the three Rs—Rum, Rowing,
and Romanticism” (Robinson, 1992, p. 27).
The day after the final crew race against Yale, Murray
became engaged to Josephine Rantoul, an attractive, outgoing
woman from an upper-class Boston family, with an
interest in social service. They were married in 1916 and
lived together until her death in 1962; they had one
daughter, Josephine, born in 1921, who later became a
physician. Intellectually, Murray came alive in medical
school at the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons,
graduating at the top of his class with a medical
degree in January 1919. Murray wanted to pursue the
underlying sciences in more depth, so he obtained a master’s
degree in biology at Columbia in 1920, and a PhD in
physiological chemistry from Cambridge University in
1927. He began a surgical internship at Presbyterian Hospital
in New York City in the fall of 1920. Paul Robeson
came into Presbyterian on a stretcher with a torn thigh
muscle from football. Murray assisted in the surgery, and
was assigned to look after the patient. Murray introduced
him to a woman in the pathology lab, Essie Cardozo
Goode, whom Robeson soon married. Murray and his
wife stayed friends with the Robesons for years; attended
Robeson’s performances in Emperor Jones, All God’s Children,
and Othello; and held receptions for them at their
home.
In 1921 Franklin D. Roosevelt was admitted to the
hospital with an attack of infantile paralysis. George
Draper, Murray’s influential teacher of case conferences in
medical school, was assigned the case, and Murray, as
intern, drew the patient’s blood nearly every day for six
weeks, and talked about common experiences at Groton
and Harvard. In Murray’s recollections, the future president
was “very talkative” and didn’t seem at all depressed.
In later years Murray was introduced to Eugene O’Neill,
and had him over for the evening, with O’Neill talking
about his father’s drinking and family turmoil, and Murray
about Jungian themes. Murray felt inarticulate in relation
to O’Neill, and when O’Neill asked him for medical
advice in 1927, Murray referred him to a friend from
medical school.
After completing his surgical internship in 1922,
Murray accepted a fellowship at the Rockefeller Institute
for Medical Research, studying biochemical and medical
changes in chicken embryos, leading eventually to twentyone
papers authored or co-authored in physiological or
medical journals. While working at the Rockefeller Institute,
he was struck by the theoretical opposition between
two of its most eminent staff, Jacques Loeb, who advocated
an extreme form of mechanism, and Alexis Carrel,
who favored a form of vitalism or holism. How, Murray
asked, can one account for such conflicting interpretations
of the same phenomena? It seemed useful to consider
science as “the creative product of an engagement
between the scientist’s psyche” and the world. This prepared
Murray for reading Carl Gustav Jung’s Psychological
Types (1923), which “came to him as a gratuitous answer
to an unspoken prayer” (Murray, 1981 [1967], p. 56).
This led to two enduring interests, “the question of
varieties of human beings … and the question of what
variables of personality are chiefly involved in the production
of dissonant theoretical systems” (p. 56). These questions
were part of Murray’s intellectual entry into
psychology, to be complemented by a more tumultuous
emotional path to psychology—through literature, love,
and his meetings with Jung.
NEW DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY 215

Murray
Murray
Expanding Psychology to Include Persons and Lives.
When Forrest Robinson proposed writing a biography of
Murray in 1970, Murray replied that there was little to
tell, except for a forty-year secret love affair that had revolutionized
his life. Christiana Morgan was born in 1897 to
a wealthy Boston Brahmin family, her father a professor at
Harvard Medical School. She attended finishing school,
served as a nurse in World War I, married Will Morgan in
1919, and bore a son in 1920. She met Murray at a Wagner
opera in New York City; several months later at a dinner
she asked Murray what he thought about Jung as
compared to Freud. Murray said he didn’t know, but hearing
her enthusiasm, he read Jung’s Psychological Types
(1923) as soon as it was published.
While working on a PhD in biochemistry at Cambridge
University, and having started to fall in love with
Christiana, Murray visited Jung over spring vacation,
1925. “On the crest of a wave I visited Dr. Jung in Zurich
supposedly to discuss abstractions; but in a day or two to
my astonishment enough affective stuff erupted to invalid
a pure scientist. This was my first opportunity to weigh
psychoanalysis in a balance; and I recommend it as one
method of measuring the worth of any brand of personology.
Take your mysteries, your knottiest dilemmas, to a fit
exponent of a system and judge the latter by its power to
order and illumine your whole being. This assuredly is a
most exacting test, to apply the touchstone of your deep
perplexity to a theory, to demand that it interpret what
you presumably know best—yourself. But then, what
good is a theory that folds up in a crisis?” (Murray, 1981
[1940], pp. 293–294).
Henry Murray. AP IMAGES.
Harvard Psychological Clinic. The Harvard Psychological
Clinic was established in 1926, and Murray was hired
as a research fellow in abnormal psychology to assist Dr.
Morton Prince, founder and director of the clinic. Prince
became ill, and Murray succeeded him in 1928 as director,
with Prince dying the following year. Murray had a
vision of psychology and a vision of the role of the clinic,
which is sketched in “Psychology and the University”
(1981 [1935]). “There is reason to believe that in coming
years the university which contributes most to the
advancement of learning and the cultivation of the human
spirit will be the one which develops and sustains the
greatest school of psychology” (p. 337).
Psychology can be defined “as the science which
describes people and explains why they perceive, feel,
think, and act as they do” (1981, p. 338). In Murray’s
view, no science of this kind yet existed. He critiqued the
kinds of questions pursued in the academic psychology of
his day as “bound to the ideology of introspectionism,” or
introspections on responses to different physical stimuli
(vision, hearing, tactile sensations). From these psychophysical
investigations into sensation and perception,
which Murray sometimes called “eye, ear, nose and throat
psychology,” consideration of “man as a human being has
somehow escaped” (1981, p. 339).
In an often repeated passage, Murray wrote in 1935
that “The truth which the informed are hesitant to reveal
and the uninformed are amazed to discover is that academic
psychology has contributed practically nothing to
the knowledge of human nature. It has not only failed to
bring light to the great, hauntingly recurrent problems,
but it has no intention, one is shocked to realize, of
attempting to investigate them. Indeed—and this is the
cream of a wry jest—an unconcerned detachment from
the natural history of ordinary mortals has become a
source of pride to many psychologists” (1981 [1935], p.
339). Murray’s hope was that the Harvard Psychological
Clinic could be a place for building connections between
“the old academic psychology and the new dynamic psychology”
(Robinson, 1992, p. 148).
216 NEW DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY

Murray
Murray
One new technique developed at the Harvard Psychological
Clinic was the Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT). The TAT is a series of ambiguous drawings, such
as a boy looking at a violin on the table before him, or a
man turning away from a woman lying on a bed. Subjects
were asked to tell a story about the pictures, what is going
on, what led up to the picture, and what may happen in
the future. The objective was to draw out people’s fantasies,
an important part of their unconscious life. Fantasies
are important as they can be related to feelings and
emotions, to formative experiences, to overt action, to
neurotic symptoms, or to creative work. Morgan drew
some of the TAT pictures, and she is listed as first author
on the original paper (1935), perhaps to draw her more
into the work of the Clinic.
Murray was powerfully influenced by psychodynamic
theory (Freud and Jung), and was affected by William
James, the Gestaltists, Kurt Lewin, Clyde Kluckhohn, and
others. He felt that Freudians emphasized sex and aggression,
while Murray proposed a larger set of needs, including
both viscerogenic or biological needs, such as needs
for food, water, sex, and harm avoidance; and psychological
needs, such as for acquisition, superiority, achievement,
recognition, dominance, autonomy, affiliation,
nurturance, play, and so on.
Murray believed that psychodynamic psychologists
were looking at some of the right questions, but with
inadequate methods, whereas academic psychologists were
sometimes more scientifically rigorous but investigating
trivial problems. Explorations in Personality (1938) was an
effort to integrate these two worlds, and to explore the
uses of multiple scientific methods for “personology” or
the study of lives, a kind of “experiential psychology.” His
team of co-authors included many who went on to influential
careers in psychology, including Robert White,
Donald MacKinnon, Nevitt Sanford, Saul Rosenzweig,
Jerome Frank, Erik Homburger (later Erikson) and others.
In his autobiography, Murray said that in some quarters
he was “thought of not as an author so much as an
author of authors, a diversity of them, none bound to his
ideas” (1981 [1967], p. 71).
When Murray came up for tenure at Harvard in
1936, although the manuscript for Explorations in Personality
was in draft, it had not yet been published. The meeting
was held at the house of the Harvard President, James
Bryant Conant. One of Murray’s supporters, Gordon Allport,
argued that Murray was the intellectual descendant
of William James and important in maintaining a humanistically
oriented psychology at Harvard. Another committee
member, neuropsychologist Karl Spencer Lashley,
had recently been hired at Harvard; the chair of psychology,
Edwin G. Boring, argued that Lashley was the best
psychologist in the world. Lashley had a strong opposition
to psychoanalysis, and strongly opposed the appointment.
He said that James had done “more harm to psychology
than any man that ever lived,” and threatened to resign if
Murray was given tenure (Robinson, 1992, p. 225). Lashley
saw this as a clash between “the older humanistic and
philosophical psychology” (Murray) versus the new more
exact and biological approach to psychology (Lashley).
The tenure vote was split three to three. As a compromise,
Murray was given two five-year non-tenured appointments.
Murray, angered at this critical tenure review by men
whose opinion he did not overly respect, went on leave
from 1937 until the fall of 1941. After a year in Europe,
he returned to the United States to work on his biography
of Herman Melville, taking Melville through age thirtythree,
when he finished Pierre. With the attack on Pearl
Harbor on 7 December 1941, the world changed, and
Murray’s conception of himself and his work in the world
also changed. Fighting against Nazism and winning
World War II became of greatest immediate importance,
while exploring the unconscious had a lower priority.
In response to a request from the Office of Strategic
Services (OSS), predecessor to the Central Intelligence
Agency, Murray finished by October 1943 a 227-page
psychological study of Adolf Hitler, “Analysis of the Personality
of Adolph [sic] Hitler, with Predictions of His
Future Behavior and Suggestions for Dealing with Him
Now and After Germany’s Surrender.” Much of this was
later published, without adequate acknowledgement of
Murray’s role, by Walter C. Langer as The Mind of Adolf
Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report (1972).
Once the Hitler study was completed, Murray went
to Washington, DC, to eventually lead a program selecting
recruits for the OSS intelligence service. This multiform
assessment drew on procedures from the Harvard
Psychological Clinic and used a variety of tests of intelligence,
mechanical ability, group problem solving, debating
ability, and physical strength. The candidates were
rated on eleven different variables, discussed in a diagnostic
council, and sketched in a biographical profile, as
reported in The Assessment of Men (Murray, et al, 1948).
Personality in Society and Culture. Murray was changed
by World War II. The “deep-diving” exploration of the
unconscious with Morgan, trying to go beyond upperclass
conventions, was no longer as central in his life as it
had been, and he turned more to the ways in which personality
is interwoven with society and culture. How
could another world war be prevented? His thoughts
turned to world government, and the need perhaps for a
“new mythology” or a new cultural framework to integrate
opposing cultural systems and reduce the likelihood of
future international conflicts.
NEW DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY 217

Murray
Murray
Murray’s two five-year appointments would have
ended in 1947, but Murray resigned from Harvard in
June 1945. Behind the scenes, even though not formally
on the faculty, he was involved in the formation of Harvard’s
new interdisciplinary Department of Social Relations,
founded in January 1946. He completed the
manuscript for Assessment of Men (1948) on the U.S.
Office of Strategic Services study he had headed, and he
co-edited Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture
(Kluckhohn and Murray, 1948, revised 1953), which
became an important collection of readings in the new
Social Relations department. This included the famous
line, “Every man is in certain respects (a.) like all other
men, (b.) like some other men, (c.) like no other man.”
(In later statements, this was rephrased in terms of “persons.”)
Individuals are like “all other persons” due to similar
features in the biological endowments of all humans,
in their physical environments, and in their social and cultural
worlds. Being like “some other persons” can be
affected by membership in different nations, tribes, and
social classes. Similarities can also be shaped by having different
types of psychopathology, or between the wealthy
and the poor in different societies.
Finally, there are the ways in which a person is like no
other person. An individual’s ways of perceiving, feeling,
needing, thinking, and behaving are not exactly duplicated
by others. This singularity is produced by unique
biological endowments interacting with particular environments,
and unique sequences of interaction between
developing persons and their environments. Analysis of
these similarities and differences and their causes could
engage social and clinical psychologists, sociologists, and
cultural anthropologists in interdisciplinary inquiry for
years to come.
Morgan did not want Murray to return to Harvard
after World War II, but to devote more time to finishing
an account of their relationship, which they had both
been working on. She wrote that his work on Melville
could be a preparation for writing about their relationship.
He never published a book-length biography of
Melville, but did write a 90-page introduction plus notes
to Melville’s Pierre (1949), a novel that Morgan and Murray
felt uncannily reflected their experience.
Murray did return to Harvard in 1948, as a lecturer
with tenure in Social Relations; he was promoted to full
professor in 1950, and remained there until his retirement
in 1962. His conceptual work often refers obliquely to the
power of “creative dyads,” but it was not clear what he was
referring to, until he told this part of his story to Forrest
Robinson, as related in Love’s Story Told: A Life of Henry A.
Murray (1992). Murray’s wife, Josephine, died in 1962,
and Morgan drowned near a beach where they were vacationing
in the Caribbean in 1967, perhaps from medical
problems, alcohol, or suicide. Murray was not able to
openly tell their story during his lifetime, and it may have
cost them dearly.
Murray entered a second marriage, which gave him a
new life, with psychologist Nina Chandler Fish in 1969.
She was familiar enough with the dyad to avoid that pattern
and seek another way of life together. A number of
scholars tried to help Murray with his unfinished publications,
including Eugene Taylor, and several “Morsels” on
Melville were published in the 1980s.
In 1970, when approached by prospective biographer
Robinson, Murray provided nearly one hundred interviews,
with the agreement that the book would be published
posthumously. Murray died in 1988, and his
biography was published in 1992. The biography proved
immensely controversial. It illuminated much about Murray’s
relationship with Morgan, and his connections to
Jung and Melville. This is a complex story, sometimes
tragic, and much remains to be understood about how
Murray’s life is related to his work in personality theory,
personality assessment, and the history of psychology and
social relations at Harvard (Runyan, 1994, 2006).
Murray’s Legacy. Murray made major contributions as a
founder of personality psychology, a leader in personality
assessment, director of the Harvard Psychological Clinic,
and a scholar of Herman Melville. With his background
of an MD and a PhD in biochemistry, he sought to
expand the bounds of scientific psychology so that it
could include the study of persons and lives. Many were
influenced by Murray, either personally or by his work.
Michigan State University started a series of Henry A.
Murray lectures beginning in 1978, and that same year,
the annual Henry A. Murray award for contributions to
personality psychology and the study of lives was established
and given through the Society of Personality and
Social Psychology of the American Psychological Association.
Murray was inspired by James, as well as by Jung,
Freud, Melville, and others. In turn, Murray’s vision
inspired many who went on to develop personality psychology.
The first generation includes Robert White, who
wrote The Abnormal Personality (1948) and Lives in
Progress (1952) and followed Murray as director of the
Harvard Psychological Clinic; Donald MacKinnon, who
became the founding director of the Institute of Personality
Assessment and Research at the University of California,
Berkeley in 1949; Nevitt Sanford, who co-authored
The Authoritarian Personality (1950) and founded the
Wright Institute; Gardner Lindzey, who edited the Handbook
of Social Psychology (1954) and co-authored Theories
of Personality (1957); and Erik Erikson, author of Child-
218 NEW DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY

Murray
Murray
hood and Society (1950), Young Man Luther (1958), and
Gandhi’s Truth (1969).
Personality psychology is constituted of at least three
strands of work: the measurement and correlation of traits
or individual difference, the study of individual lives, and
the experimental study of psychological processes. Murray
has had a significant influence on at least the first two of
these traditions.
In Paradigms of Personality Assessment, Jerry S. Wiggins
(2003) reviews the history of personality assessment
in five traditions: psychodynamic, interpersonal, personological,
multivariate, and empirical Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI). He argues that Murray
has had more influence on personality assessment across
all of these traditions than any other single individual,
including Freud.
In the study of needs and motivation, David McClelland
was a leader in studying achievement motivation,
which could be assessed through scoring TAT responses.
McClelland’s students, David Winter and Dan McAdams,
studied power motivation and affiliation motives respectively.
McAdams (2006) developed a conceptual framework
for integrating the three levels of traits, characteristic
adaptations including motives and goals, and life stories.
Rae Carlson famously asked, “Where is the person in
personality research?” (1971), pointing out how infrequently
personality psychology journals include studies of
individual lives. The situation has improved somewhat
since then, with William McKinley Runyan (1982) and
Alan C. Elms (1994) providing overviews of the study of
lives, and with the Journal of Personality doing special
issues on the study of individual lives in 1988 and 1997.
A later generation of psychologists working in the
study of lives, all influenced by Murray or his work,
include Elms, McAdams, Abigail Stewart, Irving Alexander,
Nicole Barenbaum, James Anderson, Ian Nicholson,
William Todd Schultz, George Atwood, and Runyan,
with selections in Psychobiography and Life Narratives
(McAdams and Richard L. Ochberg, 1988), and the
Handbook of Psychobiography (Schultz, 2005).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
WORKS BY MURRAY
Papers of Henry Murray. Cambridge, MA: Pusey Library,
Harvard University.
With William G. Barrett, Erik Homburger, et al. Explorations in
Personality: A Clinical and Experimental Study of Fifty Men of
College Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1938. A
founding book in personality psychology. A 70th anniversary
edition was published by Oxford University Press in
September 2007, with a preface by Dan McAdams.
“What Should Psychology Do about Psychoanalysis?” Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, (35), 1940.
With OSS Assessment Staff. Assessment of Men. New York:
Rinehart, 1948.
As editor and author of Introduction. Melville, Herman. Pierre,
or the Ambiguities. New York: Hendricks House, 1949.
As editor, with Clyde Kluckhohn and David M. Schneider.
Personality in Nature, Society, and Culture, 2nd rev. ed. New
York: Knopf, 1953.
“Preparations for the Scaffold of a Comprehensive System.” In
Psychology: A Study of a Science, Vol. 3, edited by Sigmund
Koch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
“Henry A. Murray.” In A History of Psychology in Autobiography,
Vol. V, edited by Edwin G. Boring and Gardner Lindzey.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Endeavors in Psychology: Selections from the Personology of Henry
A. Murray. Edited by Edwin S. Shneidman. New York:
Harper & Row, 1981. Includes Murray’s most important
articles and chapters.
OTHER SOURCES
Anderson, James W. “The Life of Henry A. Murray:
1893–1988.” In Studying Persons and Lives, edited by Albert
I. Rabin, et al. New York: Springer, 1990.
Barenbaum, Nicole. “Henry A. Murray : Personology as
Biography, Science, and Art.” In Portraits of Pioneers in
Psychology, Vol. VI, edited by Gregory A. Kimble, Michael
Wertheimer, and Charlotte White. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, 2006.
Carlson, Rae. “Where is the Person in Personality Research?”
Psychological Bulletin, (75), 1971, 201-219.
Douglas, Claire. Translate this Darkness: The Life of Christiana
Morgan. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993. A feminist and
Jungian biography of Murray’s partner.
Elms, Alan C. Uncovering Lives: The Uneasy Alliance of Biography
and Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Robinson, Forrest G. Love’s Story Told: A Life of Henry A. Murray.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992. A major
biography.
Runyan, William McKinley. Life Histories and Psychobiography:
Explorations in Theory and Method. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1982.
———. “Coming to Terms with the Life, Loves, and Work of
Henry A. Murray.” Contemporary Psychology 39 (1994).
Review of Robinson’s 1992 biography.
———. “Psychobiography and the Psychology of Science:
Understanding Relations between the Life and Work of
Individual Psychologists.” Review of General Psychology 10 (2)
(2006): 147–162.
Schultz, William Todd, ed. Handbook of Psychobiography. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Smith, M. Brewster, and James W. Anderson. “Henry A. Murray
(1893–1988).” American Psychologist 44, no. 8 (1989):
1153–1154.
William McKinley Runyan
NEW DICTIONARY OF SCIENTIFIC BIOGRAPHY 219