Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Personality and Blood Types Revisited: Case of Morality

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Neuroethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although a large body of research exists concerning connections between personality traits and blood types, no studies can be found within the literature on the links between morality and one’s blood type. We have conducted research examining whether blood type has any impact on the degree to which moral foundations, according to Haidt (Science 316:998–1002, 2007), are observable in an individual. Our study focused on 240 adult male and female subjects, with an average age of 43.47 years; each group was based on the ABO blood type system and consisted of 60 subjects in total. Based on the data obtained, we can conclude that there is a connection between the Harm and Purity moral foundations and blood group.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. Matthew 26:28

  2. The moral values of harm and fairness are referred to by Graham et al. [2] as Individualizing Foundations where the emphasis of one’s moral imperative is on the rights and welfare of all individuals. Features of this foundation include “widespread human concern about caring, nurturing, and protecting vulnerable individuals from harm” [2]. The second, Binding Foundation, weighs more heavily moral issues such as ingroup, authority, and purity. The emphasis of the Binding Foundation is on loyalty, obedience, duty, respect of authority, piety, self-sacrifice for the group, vigilance for traitors or free-loaders, and orderly cultural boundaries.

  3. This foundation is about the feelings of reactance and resentment people have towards those who dominate over them, restricting their liberty.

  4. Face validity is the extent to which a test is subjectively viewed as covering the concept it purports to measure. It refers to the transparency or relevance of a test as it appears to test participants. In other words, a test can be said to have face validity if it “looks like” it is going to measure what it is supposed to measure.

  5. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used to analyse the differences between group means and their associated procedures (such as “variation” among and between groups), developed by R.A. Fisher. In the ANOVA setting, the observed variance in a particular variable is partitioned into components attributable to different sources of variation. In its simplest form, ANOVA provides a statistical test of whether or not the means of several groups are equal and therefore generalizes the t-test to more than two groups.

  6. Post hoc tests are designed for situations in which the researcher has already obtained a significant omnibus F-test with a factor that consists of three or more means and additional exploration of the differences among means is needed to provide specific information on which means are significantly different from each other.

References

  1. Haidt, J. 2007. The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science 316: 998–1002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Graham, J., J. Haidt, and B. Nosek. 2009. Liberals and conservatives rely on different moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 96(5): 1029–1046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Haidt, J. 2012. The righteous mind: Why good people are divided by politics and religion. Pantheon. ISBN 978-0-307-37790-6.

  4. Gunter, T.D., M.G. Vaughn, and R.A. Philibert. 2010. Behavioral genetics in antisocial spectrum disorders and psychopathy: A review of the recent literature. Behavioral Science and Law 28(2): 148–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Marsh, et al. 2011. Serotonin Transporter Genotype (5-HTTLPR) Predicts Utilitarian Moral Judgments. PLoS ONE. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0025148.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rogers, M., and A.I. Glendon. 2003. Blood type and personality. Personality and Individual Differences 34: 1099–1112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Furukawa, T. 1930. A study of temperament and blood groups. Journal of Social Psychology 1: 494–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Jogawar, V.V. 1984. Personality correlates of human blood groups. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology 11: 5–8.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Eysenck, H.J. 1982. The biological basis of cross-cultural differences in personality: Blood group antigens. Psychological Reports 51: 531–540.

  10. Cattell, R.B., H.Y. Boutourline, and J.D. Hundleby. 1980. Blood groups and personality traits. American Journal of Human Genetics 16: 397–402.

  11. Cramer, K. M., & Imaike, E. 2002. Personality, blood type, and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences 32: 621–626.

  12. D’Adamo, P.J., and C. Whitney. 2001. Live right for your type. Ringwood: Viking.

    Google Scholar 

  13. de Mikusinski, E.B., and A.G. Omar de Urteaga. 1983. The blood group as a genetic determinator of personality types. Interdisciplinaria 4(2): 153–166.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Furukawa, T. 1927. A study of temperament by means of human blood groups. Japanese Journal of Psychology 2: 612–634.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maurer-Groeli, Y. 1974. Blutgruppen, Perso¨ nlichkeit und Schulabschluß: Eine Untersuchung mittels FPI. (Bloodgroup, personality and level of education: an investigation by means of the FPI). Schweizerische Zeitschrift Fuer Psychologie 33: 407–410.

  16. Rinieris, P. M., Christoloudous, G. N., & Stefanis, C. N. 1980. Neuroticism and ABO blood types. Acta Psychiatrica Scandanavica 61: 473–476.

  17. Lester, D., and J. Gatto. 1987. Personality and blood group. Personality and Individual Differences 8: 267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Marutham, P., and J.P. Indira. 1990. A study of the possible relationship of blood types to certain personality variables. Indian Journal of Clinical Psychology 17: 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lewis, G. J., Bates, T.C. 2011. From left to right: How the personality system allows basic traits to influence politics via characteristic moral adaptations. British Journal of Psychology 102(3): 546–558.

  20. Costa, P.T., and R.R. McCrae. 1992. Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PIR) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory professional manual. Odessa: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jensen-Campbell, L.A., and W.G. Graziano. 2001. Agreeableness as a moderator of interpersonal conflict. Journal of Personality 69: 323–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Christopher, A.N., K.L. Zabel, and J.R. Jones. 2008. Conscientiousness and work ethic ideology: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Individual Differences 29: 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pecujlija, M. 2013. Eternal life? European Journal of Science and Theology 9(6): 161–167.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Jovanovic, R., V. Radlovacki, M. Pecujlija, B. Kamberovic, M. Delic, and J. Grujic. 2012. Assessment of blood donors’ satisfaction and measures to be taken to improve quality in transfusion service establishments. Medicinski Glasnik 9(2): 231–238.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Graham, J., B.A. Nosek, J. Haidt, R. Iyer, S. Koleva, and P.H. Ditto. 2011. Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101: 366–385.

  26. Cohen, J. 1992. A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 112(1): 155–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Pecujlija, M., and D. Cosic. 2010. An orthodox Christian reflection: Genetic enhencement must not be the creation primacy problem between man and God. American Journal of Bioethics 4(10): 78–80.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Fumagalli, et al. 2012. Functional and clinical neuroanatomy of morality. Brain. doi:10.1093/brain/awr334.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Wilson, E.O. 1998. Consilience: The unity of knowledge. ISBN-13: 978-0679450771.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Snezana Pecujlija the constructive suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Technical Sciences, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Mladen Pecujlija

  2. Medical Faculty, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Gordana Misic-Pavkov

  3. KCV, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Maja Popovic

Authors
  1. Mladen Pecujlija
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gordana Misic-Pavkov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Maja Popovic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mladen Pecujlija.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pecujlija, M., Misic-Pavkov, G. & Popovic, M. Personality and Blood Types Revisited: Case of Morality. Neuroethics 8, 171–176 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9220-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-014-9220-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation