Is the political slant of psychology research related to scientific replicability?

Social science is a field predominantly composed of liberals, and critics have argued that this liberal representation may reduce the robustness of research by embedding liberal values into the research and peer-review process. In an adversarial collaboration, we examined whether the ideological slant of research findings in psychology is associated with lower rates of scientific replicability. We analyzed 194 original psychology articles that had been subject to a later replication attempt (with a total sample of 1,331,413 participants across replications) by having psychology doctoral students (Study 1) and an online sample of U.S. residents (Study 2), from across the political spectrum, code the ideological slant (liberal vs. conservative) of the original research abstracts. The methods and analyses for both studies were pre-registered. In both studies, the liberal or conservative slant of the original research was not associated with whether or not the results successfully replicated: less than 2% of the variance in replication success was explained by ideological slant. The results remained consistent regardless of the ideology of the coder. Further, ideological slant was unrelated to both subsequent citation patterns and the original study effect size, and not consistently related to the original study sample size. However, we found weak evidence that more ideological research (regardless of ideology) was less replicable, and strong evidence that variables related to statistical robustness were consistent predictors of replication success. We discuss the implications for social science, politics, and replicability.