To a certain degree, this is what all historians do. Contextualizing the decisions, actions, beliefs, etc. of the subject in relation to the period and society in which they lived is crucial to the work of the historian. Obviously not all historians focus on individuals or historical figures, per se, but placing the subjects in their own contexts is a big piece of what makes history history.

However, it sounds like you might mean something more scientific than that. Psychological history is very much a thing (usually called psychohistory), although it was much more popular a couple decades ago. Joan of Arc has been a common target of this kind of analysis. Clifford Allen has suggested that Joan might have been schizophrenic, and Foote-Smith and Bayne have argued that she probably suffered from epilepsy.

Psychohistory was quite popular in the 80s and into the 90s, but it's received quite a bit of pushback in the last couple decades. It tends to be relegated to the realm of popular history. Part of the problem is that very rarely do we have anywhere near enough information to make a diagnosis. That's not a reason to avoid psychohistory in and of itself, but approaching the question of someone like Joan of Arc from a purely medical perspective also obscures her own motivations and beliefs. By diagnosing her with schizophrenia or epilepsy (or tuberculosis, accidental LSD consumption, or any of the many other theories about her condition), we neglect her apparently very real belief that she was acting out God's will. Thomas Kohut has a nice way of putting it: psychohistory has attracted criticism from "traditional" historians for "emphasizing unconscious motive over conscious purpose." Psychohistory can be quite useful in drawing historians' attention to factors they might not have the expertise to recognize, but it needs a great deal of contextualization in its own right.