Opposing the widely spread association of psychological approaches to literature with reductionist psychoanalytic interpretations, in this text, we demonstrate that the psychological approach to literature is just one available interdisciplinary method, which has produced some of the most valuable results in Serbian philology. We presented the basic directions, methods, achievements, and shortcomings of different psychological approaches, and outlined the pro- files of the literary scholars who connected these disciplines in a representative manner. We pointed out the diversity of psychological approaches, not only regarding their theo- retical orientation (Freudian psychoanalysis, with its unique extension in Lacan’s work, Jung’s analytical psychology, followed by existentialism and self psychology), but also regarding their results. It was mainly the vast psychological knowledge in the studies of H. Klajn, N. Milošević, Z. Gluščević. M. Šutić, R. Kordić, and O. Žižović that served as the starting point, building a specific perspective that allowed us to analyse the given literary works from its many sides, without neglecting its literary and aesthetic components. We demonstrated that applying Jung’s analytical psychology and the theory of archetypes produced by far the most valuable insights, while overestimating Freud’s psychoanalytic frame of reference emphasized the weak points of the approach. We also identified self psychology as a potentially fruitful but also heavily underutilized method in Serbian philology. As a rule, whenever we treated the psychological approach as an auxiliary means of liter- ary interpretation, it yielded valuable results and we found innovative approaches that deep- ened our understanding of the literary work. On the other hand, when we applied psychology as a key, a solution to the work’s mystery, we ended up with one-sided approaches, that are, in the end, the only approaches to which the frequently and unjustifiably used term “psycholo- gism” can be applied.