May 31, 2025 • 31 mins
In this #StudyFinds episode of #ProveItPod, Dr. Matt Law attempts to make sense of a meme that claims recent research has found that roasting your friends makes you more loyal and trustworthy. Listen now to find out!
Episode Resources:
Gorman, G., & Jordan, C. H. (2015). “I know you’re kidding”: Relationship closeness enhances positive perceptions of teasing. Personal Relationships, 22(2), 173–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/pere.12071
Johannessen, E. M. V. (2021). Blurred lines: The ambiguity of disparaging humour and slurs in Norwegian high school boys’ friendship groups. Young. https://doi.org/10.1177/11033088211006924
Ledet, B. (2025, March 6). Blair’s social second: Do you insult or roast your friends for fun? FOX 2 Now, Nextar Media Inc. https://fox2now.com/am-show/social-second/blairs-social-second-do-you-insult-or-roast-your-friends-for-fun/
Murti, A. (2020, February 17). Research shows we all should absolutely, relentlessly roast our friends. The Swaddle. https://www.theswaddle.com/why-do-friends-roast-each-other
Platt, M., Malecki, C. K., Luckner, A., Wiemer, K., & Pyun, Y. (2022). You can’t sit with us…just kidding! An investigation into the association between empathy and prosocial teasing. Psychology in the Schools, 59(4), 832–844. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22650
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Time is a funny thing.
(00:02):
You know,
I never thought I would have to
intentionally and laboriously cram a two
-hour movie into a five-hour period.
That math doesn't work.
That is,
until you add the confounding factor of
children.
There is no math anymore,
and time doesn't make any sense.
Thanks, kids.
Dad has lost it.
It's an all
(00:22):
-new Prove It To Me. Hello, everyone, and welcome to Prove-It-To-Me. I'm your host, Dr. Matt Law. Hey, I know it's been a minute, but I'm told I should stop apologizing for the sporadicity of my episodes.
(01:00):
It kinda just is what it is.
I've been very busy doing my own
research,
and I just haven't had the time.
I also am not one to create content
just to create content.
Like,
I know there's something to consistently
touching an audience to create
retention and grow a following,
and that makes sense.
(01:20):
But also,
and I don't want this to seem like I
don't care about you, because I do,
but a lot about doing this podcast is
for me.
It took me a while to find a creative
outlet for myself that just made sense
and provided some value to other
people, but honestly,
I'm good with just having a handful of
listeners.
(01:40):
Creating this thing is cathartic for
me.
It's my own form of therapy.
A couple of weeks ago,
I even thought about putting out a
short clip of something I had thought
of while I was falling asleep one
night.
Then, of course,
that turned into not falling asleep
because I was thinking about it too
much,
so I sent an email to myself about what
I was thinking.
so I could stop thinking about it.
(02:02):
The next morning,
I realized it was pretty soft.
I didn't really have a good reason or
anything to back up what I was thinking
and it might have been a little
accusatory in its nature.
So I skipped it then,
but I will still share it with you.
When, you ask?
Well,
I will share it at the end of this
episode.
(02:23):
Ha!
See?
Audience retention.
I have a little bit of a handle on
this.
With that being said,
I know the next couple of months will
be a bit unpredictable when it comes to
putting out new episodes.
I'm on a time crunch with some projects
and I need to focus my efforts on
completing those.
I'm hoping to get back to a more
consistent output on the podcast after
that,
(02:43):
but this summer will be a little crazy.
Oh, also,
I have the Nintendo Switch 2 on pre
-order and you can bet your ass that I
will find my catharsis in hours of
playing Mario Kart and The Legend of
Zelda starting next week.
If you're looking for me...
That's where I'll be.
Alright,
on to the main topic I wanted to cover
today.
(03:04):
So I'm a Facebook doom-scroller.
Well,
maybe doom-scroller is not the right
term since I have unfollowed most of
the unfulfilling negativity that had
previously showed up in my feed.
My Facebook feed these days is mostly
Star Trek, cooking, gaming,
and a little underrated show called
Community, #sixseasonsandamovie. And then the random sponsored shit that Facebook's algorithm has determined is relevant to me.
(03:31):
I find it interesting to try to figure
out how different advertisers will
reach their engagement metrics.
The backend analytics are always
changing and getting better, honestly.
So the way advertisers shape their
content to get the most meaningful
engagement is interesting.
Like there's a metric for reach,
like the amount of people who actually
(03:51):
may come across your content in their
feed.
And there's a metric for views,
which means you might need to make the
text part of your post longer than 3
lines so that your audience will click
to read further to get that metric.
But of course you have to make that
first 3 lines catchy enough to get
somebody to click.
Then of course there are metrics for
(04:12):
reactions and comments.
And I do love comment sections.
When you see that one of the reactions
is the ha ha laughing face,
you know the comment section is going
to have either a bunch of people
capitalizing on a joke for good honest
fun or a bunch of absolute trolls.
Or both, actually.
There's a page I follow called People
(04:34):
Incorrectly Correcting Other People,
where posts are usually screenshots of,
well, that.
People incorrectly correcting other
people.
This page is a rabbit hole that takes
you to the absolute bottom of the
barrel as far as humanity is concerned.
Any given comment section will be full
of people who are absolutely sure of
themselves.
(04:54):
And they will inevitably be corrected,
either correctly or incorrectly,
by other people who are also absolutely
sure of themselves.
It's maddening.
But there's a part of me that enjoys
reading through what is quite probably
the downfall of humanity without the
content being tied to American
politics.
It's a phenomenon that you don't see
(05:15):
outside of social media.
Strangers don't normally gather in
rooms and incessantly troll each other
and argue about meaningless details
that really amount to nothing.
That only really happens with families
at Thanksgiving or with safety
committees.
Oh, Dr.
Law, what did you just say?
Yeah, so anyway,
back to the advertisers.
(05:36):
There's apparently a new way to measure
engagement.
A lot of newer posts will have an
image,
usually a meme or something else catchy.
And in the description at the top,
they'll have an arrow that says link in
the comments or something to that
effect.
It forces you to open the comments
section and engage with the post if you
want to know the whole story,
which is...
(05:58):
It's kind of a crapshoot as to whether
the link leads you to a story that is
as interesting as the original post
made it sound.
Yes, this is called clickbait.
Usually, the story,
especially when it's from a small media
outlet you've never heard of or maybe
even some of the ones you have,
will be an elaborate embellishment of
some small detail about something that
(06:19):
got you excited and really amounts to
absolutely nothing of value.
But that's not the point.
When you get to that page,
there are usually many,
many advertisements.
The smaller and more unknown the media
outlet,
the more advertisements you can expect.
Now,
you might not notice it because you're
used to seeing pop-ups from your years
(06:40):
of surfing on the web,
but the whole time you are trying to
satisfy your FOMO on information that
was promised by the likely misleading
initial post,
the folks behind the website are making
money just by you visiting the page.
Mostly,
they don't care if the content is real
or meaningful,
they only care that you're there so
they can make their money.
(07:01):
Honestly, I love the free market,
so I'm good with folks making money.
I just need the folks clicking the
links to realize what their clicks
ultimately mean.
You have to have the initiative to
figure out whether the content you are
receiving has any value or if you have
really just been turned into a living,
breathing,
unknown dollar amount or a statistic.
(07:23):
Anyway,
one day several weeks ago at this
point,
I'm scrolling through my feed and I see
a post with a headline that starts
with, you guessed it, Study Finds.
Of course,
you know I gravitate to that stuff.
No way am I going to get the full
picture from the headline of the post,
but I'm sure that's what they're
(07:43):
counting on.
I have to click the link,
but I see Study Finds, so I'm game.
I'll make them some money.
The post says,
Study Finds friends who playfully roast
each other are more trustworthy and
honest.
Hey, I can get into that.
It honestly makes sense.
I mean,
the people I consider to be my best
(08:05):
friends,
the ones I can reliably confide in for
any number of reasons,
are also the people I can count on for
a good roast.
We always make fun of each other.
And I would love to say that I'm the
one who does the most roasting,
but that just wouldn't be true.
The truth is, I'm an easy mark.
And I'm not quite witty enough to be
the best roaster.
(08:26):
I've always been the butt of the joke.
I'm used to it.
Hang on, I'm going to write that down.
I probably need to talk to my therapist
about that.
So yeah,
you might be able to relate to this.
Think about your own best friends.
Do you roast each other?
Do you find you can trust those people
better because you can playfully roast
each other?
Or have you never really thought about
(08:47):
it that way?
Okay, so I'm hooked.
I jumped down to the comments section.
Wait, where's the link?
There's no link?
So, how are they making money on this?
Okay, so now I'm even more confused.
I mean,
obviously this group just shared a meme
about this study,
(09:08):
and they forgot to include the link,
right?
Hello?
Now I have to turn to old faithful
Google.
You know,
where most good research starts, right?
Search term.
Study finds roasting friends.
Now, my search results are pretty vast,
but they all seem to be about the same
(09:30):
thing.
What's concerning is that a few of
these go back to posts from social
media.
Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok,
etc.
But I do get some news articles in
here.
Let's go there.
News articles generally have links to
sources.
Surely,
they wouldn't make something up.
Now,
I'm assuming this is a fairly new study,
(09:51):
so I'm going to start with anything
from 2025.
Here's one from March of this year,
Fox 2 Now,
which appears to be a local Fox
affiliate out of St.
Louis.
This is Blair's Social Second by Blair
Ledet,
and it's titled Do You Insult or Roast
Your Friends for Fun?
I'm looking for a study link.
(10:13):
Second paragraph.
A recent study reveals that friends who
playfully insult each other are 300%
more loyal and honest.
The study claims light-hearted jabs
strengthen bonds and create deeper
trust and openness.
Okay, Blair, cool quote.
I'm in.
Now,
since this is Blair's Social Second,
(10:35):
this article is mostly Blair's
commentary along with some comments she
collected from readers.
Not that interesting to me, but okay.
So, give me the link, Blair.
Blair, where is the link?
Where is the link to the study, Blair?
Hey, Fox 2 out of St.
(10:56):
Louis, did you know...
about this?
Did you know there is no link to this
study?
Do you guys make a habit of not sharing
your sources?
I mean,
it's not that hard to include a hyperlink.
You've got links to all sorts of stuff
I don't need all over this page.
What about the study?
What about journalistic integrity?
(11:18):
Hey, Fox2 now out of St.
Louis, where the hell is my study link?
Where is my damn link?
Alright, back to Google.
Like, surely someone has this.
I've got this one from East Coast
Radio, also published in March.
It's titled Our Friends Who Roast You
(11:39):
More Loyal.
With the tagline,
some of the strongest friendships are
built on insults.
Okay, source, source.
Okay, the source, get this,
is Fox2 now.
I mean,
at least East Coast Radio cited a
source,
but we just found out that their source
didn't share a source.
(12:01):
In this same article,
there's a video clip from the I've Had
It podcast.
From the amount of likes on Instagram,
this is obviously a podcast that is far
more popular than mine.
That's fine.
Maybe they have a link.
Nope.
They just repeated the same statement.
New study finds that friends who often
playfully insult each other are 300%
(12:21):
more honest and loyal.
Guys, where the fuck is my link?
There's nothing else meaningful in this
Google search.
Let's go to Google Scholar.
Remember,
I'm trying to find out about this
recent study,
so I'm looking at 2024 to present.
Okay,
study finds roasting friends is my
(12:41):
search term.
I've got roasting wheat,
roasting peanuts, roasting politicians.
Okay,
maybe the word roasting is my problem.
What's a more academic term for
roasting?
Insulting?
Banter?
Okay, insulting friends.
Insulting friends loyalty.
(13:02):
You know what?
I'm not really a fan of Google Scholar,
and I'm not getting anything anyway.
Let's try my school library databases.
Okay, peer reviewed journals,
2023 to 2025.
Insulting friends, nothing.
Some stuff about cyberbullying.
Roasting friends, nothing.
(13:25):
Banter and loyalty, nothing.
I've got nothing, folks.
This is about to be the shortest study
finds episode ever.
Alright,
maybe back to the Google search and
look for something a little older.
Maybe it wasn't recent after all.
Here's one from the swaddle.
I don't know the swaddle,
so my expectations are low.
(13:48):
This one is from 2020,
written by Aditi Murti, titled,
research shows we all should absolutely
absolutely,
relentlessly roast our friends.
Tagline.
Disparagement humor,
the fancy term for your sick burns,
acts as a social lubricant,
putting people at ease around each
other.
Social lubricant?
(14:08):
Okay.
Well,
at least we're in the same theme and
we've got an academic term,
disparagement humor.
I'm probably going to take that back to
the library for another search,
but let's look at this first to see if
there are any links.
I do have a full-width picture of
Chelsea Peretti from her role in
Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
I love her and I love that show.
(14:30):
I don't remember if I finished it or
not, but many great moments.
The first link is embedded in this
sentence.
According to family slash parenting
beat reporter and author KJ Del
Antonio,
pro-social teasing among your friends
is known to reveal affiliations and
help friends become closer.
(14:51):
That link goes to an article in the New
York Times from 2012 and that article
has another link to quote-unquote
research which leads to a 404 error.
Dead end.
But we've got another search term,
prosocial teasing.
Next link is to an article by Dr.
Peter Gray in Psychology Today titled
(15:12):
The Educative Value of Teasing and it's
from 2013.
This is not a peer-reviewed article and
Dr.
Gray's sources point to things even
older and he even cited another article
authored by himself.
Fine.
Now I've got nothing else from the
swaddle and I'm not finding recent
research so let's take our new terms
(15:33):
and see if we can come up with
something.
Starting with disparagement humor and
now I'm expanding my search to the last
five years,
again looking only for peer-reviewed
journal articles.
If it's truly a study,
that's where we will find it.
I have one that is political identity
moderates evaluations of disparagement
(15:54):
humor,
another one that's disparagement humor
permits unsafe COVID-19 behaviors,
diminished self-concept and social
exclusion,
disparagement humor from the targets
perspective.
This whole list is really studies on
the negative impacts of disparagement
humor and most of them specifically
target things like gender identity,
(16:16):
race, sexual orientation, obesity,
violence and the overall perpetuation
of offensiveness and prejudice.
Out of 58 results,
none of them are pointing towards a
positive result and none are about
friendship.
So when I add friendship to the search
to narrow the results,
I've got one qualitative study that has
(16:40):
the word ambiguity in the title and
doesn't appear to be completely against
disparagement humor.
We'll pocket that for now and look at
the other term.
Okay,
using the term pro-social teasing.
I've got a small handful of results and
I think one of these studies is going
to give us a good picture of some
recent research into this topic.
(17:01):
Alright,
so I'm going to briefly go through
these two different studies and we're
going to see if there is anything here
that points to the claim that we
started with,
that friends who insult each other are
300% more loyal and trustworthy.
This first one published by Johannesen
in 2021 in a journal called Young,
(17:22):
is titled Blurred Lines,
the Ambiguity of Disparaging Humor and
Slurs in Norwegian High School Boys
Friendship Groups.
This study took place in Norway and
they used a qualitative approach
consisting of participant observation
and individual interviews with students
to look at the use of disparaging humor
and slurs amongst high school boys.
(17:44):
Now,
Anytime you take a qualitative approach
to research,
you are embarking on a very long and
arduous journey,
and it feels like you are fumbling
around in the dark for what seems like
the rest of eternity.
There are generally accepted methods
for coding and organizing data obtained
from interviews and things like that,
and of course there is software to
(18:05):
help,
and it looks like this author used
those things.
I will give them the benefit of the
doubt.
I would hope they'd do the same for me.
Honestly,
qualitative research is really supposed
to be used to explore concepts that
have never been researched before so
that you can identify themes that can
later be used for quantitative
(18:25):
research.
You need both.
So here's what they've found from all
of these interviews and observations.
Basically,
high school boys pretty often use
disparagement humor.
A lot of this humor is prejudice and
discriminatory in nature,
often including racial slurs and gay
slurs.
(18:46):
However,
they found that the intent behind this
humor was not linked to discriminatory
or prejudiced attitudes or practices.
They are specifically pointing out that
the lines between harmful and harmless
disparagement humor are blurred and
inherently complex.
Generally,
the boys felt that this humor was
necessary to maintaining friendships
(19:07):
and they felt they should be able to
joke about anything.
There were also some weird nuances to
this,
and if you've been in these environments
you might be familiar with these
nuances.
For example,
the boys did indicate that they tended
to be more careful about using slurs
when someone who was gay or belonged to
a minority race were present.
(19:28):
The author also observed that students
who belonged to minority groups often
used self-deprecating likely as a
strategic way to combat or diffuse
tensions or manage emotions.
The author states that what is unknown
is what would happen to these
friendships if someone was hurt by a
joke made and actually spoke up about
(19:48):
it.
Even if they are hurt,
they may not speak up about it because
the friendship is more important and
having positive friendships has been
associated with success in school.
Now,
the real kicker to this study is that
this makes discipline very difficult
and complex for teachers.
Teachers often crack down on the
(20:09):
language used in disparaging humor
because it is commonly and logically
linked to bullying, racism,
and discrimination.
But because the boys have positive
results in their friendships by
engaging in this type of humor,
the eradication of such behavior is
very difficult.
The author suggests that ultimately
this needs to be explored more and for
(20:30):
now,
it may be important for teachers to
work through both the positive and
negative aspects to disparaging humor.
Now, with qualitative studies,
we don't get scores,
we don't get numbers like 300%.
So this isn't the study we were looking
for.
However,
it is basically the only study in my
(20:51):
results that seemed to be any kind of
supportive of disparagement humor.
So let's look at the one about
prosocial teasing.
This study by Platt and colleagues was
published in 2022 in a journal called
Psychology in the Schools.
It's titled You Can't Sit With Us.
Just kidding.
An investigation into the association
(21:13):
between empathy and prosocial teasing.
The authors aim to examine the
relationship between prosocial teasing
as a form of relational aggression and
empathy among fifth grade students in
the Midwest United States.
The reason I wanted to look at this
article specifically is because the
authors give a background on both
aggression and prosocial teasing.
(21:34):
If we're looking for supportive
information, it should be there.
First,
the authors made the distinction between
physical and relational aggression,
noting that both may have proactive and
reactive elements.
Relational aggression, specifically,
refers to behaviors intended to
threaten or harm friendships or one's
feelings of belonging to a group.
(21:56):
This includes spreading rumors,
exclusion of a peer from a group,
and threats to withdraw friendships.
Of course,
it has been associated with negative
outcomes.
Another interesting piece here is that
there is conflicting information on the
difference between boys and girls using
aggression.
An early study back in 1995 suggested
that girls were more likely to use
(22:18):
relational aggression while boys were
more likely to use physical aggression.
Another study in 2003 found no
difference between boys and girls using
relational aggression and a second
study also in 2003 found that boys were
more likely to use relational
aggression than girls.
Then one more study in 2009 found that
(22:40):
when they controlled for physical
aggression,
girls were more likely to use
relational aggression than boys.
Is your head spinning?
Actually, that's a good thing.
When we have conflicting results from
multiple studies,
it means we need to continue to do
bigger and broader research looking at
many different factors.
Most importantly,
this illustrates that no one study will
(23:02):
ever serve as the source of truth.
Let me repeat that.
No one study will ever serve as the
source of truth for any given
relationship between variables.
You cannot get causation from one
study.
You need many studies with repeated
measures and big samples to get really
(23:24):
strong correlations, and in fact,
you may never really get to causation.
Okay,
so let's look at their background on
prosocial teasing.
Prosocial teasing, the authors say,
is generally defined as an ambiguous
social provocation that is intended to
playfully express something to the
(23:45):
target.
It includes elements of aggression,
humor or play,
and ambiguity to convey a positive
message to the target of the tease
despite the negative face value of the
words or actions being used.
Now,
the impact of prosocial teasing is qualified
by the relationship.
Even if the teaser had positive
(24:06):
intentions,
the impact of prosocial teasing may
harm the relationship if the
relationship between the teaser and the
receiver is not established.
On the other hand,
if two people have a close
relationship,
the receiver could perceive the same
comment in a more positive way and with
better intentions.
Furthermore,
(24:27):
the authors say that despite the
negative associations between
aggression and youth outcomes for both
physical and relational aggression,
there is growing evidence that the more
playful versions of aggression may be
related to positive outcomes.
Okay, here we go.
300%.
Let's see.
The authors point out that previous
(24:47):
studies may indicate that prosocial
teasing has been found to strengthen
friendships and build stronger bonds
between people.
Now,
here's where I'm going to go down a
rabbit hole to find my answer to the
question we started with.
Stick with me.
I'll include the citations for these
studies in the episode notes,
but I'm not going too deep here for
time's sake.
(25:08):
Basically,
the study by Gorman and Jordan in 2015
found that teasing is more likely to be
interpreted positively when
relationships are close,
and being closer can enhance the
positive interpretation of teasing.
What that doesn't tell us is whether
teasing enhances the relationship.
That's what we were looking for from
(25:30):
the start.
Instead,
this study shows that it's the other
way around,
but they do reference a couple of
articles by Keltner and colleagues that
apparently may show us what we're
looking for.
The study to support what we're looking
for here just so happens to be one that
was published way back in 1998.
(25:51):
The authors studied participants from a
fraternity at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
They had a total of 48 participants,
and they were encouraged to tease each
other as they normally would,
and various measurements were taken and
observations were made.
What we are looking for is the answer
to their second research question.
How might teasing relate to increased
(26:13):
affiliation?
In their analysis,
they found that overall prosocial
teasing significantly correlated with
increased flirtation, positive emotion,
reduced negative emotion,
and increased positive relative to
negative emotion.
What we don't have is a 300% number.
(26:34):
Okay,
now we need to dig back out of this
rabbit hole.
It's...
Not because we've hit a dead end,
it's because we need to come back to
the whole reason we went down this path
in the first place.
Here's the deal.
We never found the study that was the
subject of that Facebook post I found.
There was no link.
(26:54):
We never found the study that was the
subject of the article posted by Fox2
now out of St. Louis
They did not post a link.
And none of the results of the studies
we did find provide any evidence to
back up their claim.
Even if they were favorable to the
notion of teasing being supportive of
friendships.
What did we find?
Number one,
(27:14):
disparagement humor is complex.
It can be important to certain
friendships,
but it can also hurt people.
Number two,
prosocial teasing is also complex.
It is rooted in relational aggression,
but it has positive intent.
Number three,
the positive reception of teasing may
be dependent on the closeness of the
(27:36):
relationship.
Number four,
the closeness of the relationship may
be enhanced by teasing,
the extent to which is unclear.
Number five,
no single study may serve as the source
of truth for anything,
and multiple studies that seemingly
examine the same concepts may produce
different results.
(27:56):
Finally,
and I cannot stress this enough,
number six, Fox2 now out of St.
Louis.
I am addressing you directly.
You have egregiously violated
journalistic integrity by perpetuating
the claim of a study that does not
exist.
Fox2 now out of St.
Louis.
You are on notice.
(28:17):
Cite your damn sources.
Okay, we're coming up on the end now,
and I want to share that small thought
I had the other day.
It's this.
Be curious.
Be comfortable when you don't have a
conclusion.
Let the absence of conclusions spark
more curiosity.
When you are presented with an idea
(28:39):
that goes against what you think is
true, don't just dismiss it.
Be curious.
And when you're presented with an idea
that does align with what you already
think is true,
don't just automatically accept it.
Be curious.
When you have a gap in knowledge,
don't fill it with assumptions.
Fill it with curiosity.
(29:02):
That's it.
Soft.
I know.
But this is how research starts.
Be curious.
Not asumptive.
Oh,
so this week I got to meet up with Dr.
Todd Loushine once again to present at
the ABC Safety Champions Conference in
Orlando.
Thanks to my friend Tim Bernardi,
we got to expand on the conversation we
had back in episode 102 of this
(29:23):
podcast, and I did record the session.
Once I have some time to go through
this and make edits,
you can look forward to hearing that
conversation on a brand new episode of
this podcast in the coming weeks.
Between now and then,
I will be logging many hours in Mario
Kart on my new Nintendo Switch 2,
and I may or may not make myself
available for anything outside of that.
(29:45):
Just being honest.
Until next time, I'm Dr.
Matt Law,
this has been another episode of The
Study Finds on the Prove It To Me
Podcast.
Take care and stay safe, everyone.
(30:12):
Prove It To Me is produced by me,
Matt Law, original music by Wes London.
You can find this podcast on Podbean,
Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube,
Amazon Music, and iHeartRadio.
Like what you've heard so far?
Please like, subscribe,
and follow wherever you get your
podcasts,
and leave a 5-star review on Apple
Podcasts.
Got questions about what we talked
(30:32):
about or research that you want to
share?
Send an email to contact at proveitpod
.com.
The views and opinions expressed in
this podcast are those of the host and
its guests and do not necessarily
represent the official position,
opinion,
or strategies of their employers or
companies.
Examples of research and data analysis
discussed within this podcast are only
(30:53):
examples.
They should not be utilized in the real
world as the only solution available as
they are based on very limited,
often single use case,
and sometimes dated information.
Assumptions made within this discussion
about research and data analyses are
not necessarily representative of the
position of the host, the guests,
or their employers or companies.
No part of this podcast may be
reproduced,
(31:14):
stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any
means mechanical, electronic,
recording,
or otherwise without prior written
permission of the creator of the
podcast.
The presentation of the content by the
guests does not necessarily constitute
an active endorsement of the content by
the host.
Time is a funny thing.
(00:02):
You know,
I never thought I would have to
intentionally and laboriously cram a two
-hour movie into a five-hour period.
That math doesn't work.
That is,
until you add the confounding factor of
children.
There is no math anymore,
and time doesn't make any sense.
Thanks, kids.
Dad has lost it.
It's an all
(00:22):
-new Prove It To Me. Hello, everyone, and welcome to Prove-It-To-Me. I'm your host, Dr. Matt Law. Hey, I know it's been a minute, but I'm told I should stop apologizing for the sporadicity of my episodes.
(01:00):
It kinda just is what it is.
I've been very busy doing my own
research,
and I just haven't had the time.
I also am not one to create content
just to create content.
Like,
I know there's something to consistently
touching an audience to create
retention and grow a following,
and that makes sense.
(01:20):
But also,
and I don't want this to seem like I
don't care about you, because I do,
but a lot about doing this podcast is
for me.
It took me a while to find a creative
outlet for myself that just made sense
and provided some value to other
people, but honestly,
I'm good with just having a handful of
listeners.
(01:40):
Creating this thing is cathartic for
me.
It's my own form of therapy.
A couple of weeks ago,
I even thought about putting out a
short clip of something I had thought
of while I was falling asleep one
night.
Then, of course,
that turned into not falling asleep
because I was thinking about it too
much,
so I sent an email to myself about what
I was thinking.
so I could stop thinking about it.
(02:02):
The next morning,
I realized it was pretty soft.
I didn't really have a good reason or
anything to back up what I was thinking
and it might have been a little
accusatory in its nature.
So I skipped it then,
but I will still share it with you.
When, you ask?
Well,
I will share it at the end of this
episode.
(02:23):
Ha!
See?
Audience retention.
I have a little bit of a handle on
this.
With that being said,
I know the next couple of months will
be a bit unpredictable when it comes to
putting out new episodes.
I'm on a time crunch with some projects
and I need to focus my efforts on
completing those.
I'm hoping to get back to a more
consistent output on the podcast after
that,
(02:43):
but this summer will be a little crazy.
Oh, also,
I have the Nintendo Switch 2 on pre
-order and you can bet your ass that I
will find my catharsis in hours of
playing Mario Kart and The Legend of
Zelda starting next week.
If you're looking for me...
That's where I'll be.
Alright,
on to the main topic I wanted to cover
today.
(03:04):
So I'm a Facebook doom-scroller.
Well,
maybe doom-scroller is not the right
term since I have unfollowed most of
the unfulfilling negativity that had
previously showed up in my feed.
My Facebook feed these days is mostly
Star Trek, cooking, gaming,
and a little underrated show called
Community, #sixseasonsandamovie. And then the random sponsored shit that Facebook's algorithm has determined is relevant to me.
(03:31):
I find it interesting to try to figure
out how different advertisers will
reach their engagement metrics.
The backend analytics are always
changing and getting better, honestly.
So the way advertisers shape their
content to get the most meaningful
engagement is interesting.
Like there's a metric for reach,
like the amount of people who actually
(03:51):
may come across your content in their
feed.
And there's a metric for views,
which means you might need to make the
text part of your post longer than 3
lines so that your audience will click
to read further to get that metric.
But of course you have to make that
first 3 lines catchy enough to get
somebody to click.
Then of course there are metrics for
(04:12):
reactions and comments.
And I do love comment sections.
When you see that one of the reactions
is the ha ha laughing face,
you know the comment section is going
to have either a bunch of people
capitalizing on a joke for good honest
fun or a bunch of absolute trolls.
Or both, actually.
There's a page I follow called People
(04:34):
Incorrectly Correcting Other People,
where posts are usually screenshots of,
well, that.
People incorrectly correcting other
people.
This page is a rabbit hole that takes
you to the absolute bottom of the
barrel as far as humanity is concerned.
Any given comment section will be full
of people who are absolutely sure of
themselves.
(04:54):
And they will inevitably be corrected,
either correctly or incorrectly,
by other people who are also absolutely
sure of themselves.
It's maddening.
But there's a part of me that enjoys
reading through what is quite probably
the downfall of humanity without the
content being tied to American
politics.
It's a phenomenon that you don't see
(05:15):
outside of social media.
Strangers don't normally gather in
rooms and incessantly troll each other
and argue about meaningless details
that really amount to nothing.
That only really happens with families
at Thanksgiving or with safety
committees.
Oh, Dr.
Law, what did you just say?
Yeah, so anyway,
back to the advertisers.
(05:36):
There's apparently a new way to measure
engagement.
A lot of newer posts will have an
image,
usually a meme or something else catchy.
And in the description at the top,
they'll have an arrow that says link in
the comments or something to that
effect.
It forces you to open the comments
section and engage with the post if you
want to know the whole story,
which is...
(05:58):
It's kind of a crapshoot as to whether
the link leads you to a story that is
as interesting as the original post
made it sound.
Yes, this is called clickbait.
Usually, the story,
especially when it's from a small media
outlet you've never heard of or maybe
even some of the ones you have,
will be an elaborate embellishment of
some small detail about something that
(06:19):
got you excited and really amounts to
absolutely nothing of value.
But that's not the point.
When you get to that page,
there are usually many,
many advertisements.
The smaller and more unknown the media
outlet,
the more advertisements you can expect.
Now,
you might not notice it because you're
used to seeing pop-ups from your years
(06:40):
of surfing on the web,
but the whole time you are trying to
satisfy your FOMO on information that
was promised by the likely misleading
initial post,
the folks behind the website are making
money just by you visiting the page.
Mostly,
they don't care if the content is real
or meaningful,
they only care that you're there so
they can make their money.
(07:01):
Honestly, I love the free market,
so I'm good with folks making money.
I just need the folks clicking the
links to realize what their clicks
ultimately mean.
You have to have the initiative to
figure out whether the content you are
receiving has any value or if you have
really just been turned into a living,
breathing,
unknown dollar amount or a statistic.
(07:23):
Anyway,
one day several weeks ago at this
point,
I'm scrolling through my feed and I see
a post with a headline that starts
with, you guessed it, Study Finds.
Of course,
you know I gravitate to that stuff.
No way am I going to get the full
picture from the headline of the post,
but I'm sure that's what they're
(07:43):
counting on.
I have to click the link,
but I see Study Finds, so I'm game.
I'll make them some money.
The post says,
Study Finds friends who playfully roast
each other are more trustworthy and
honest.
Hey, I can get into that.
It honestly makes sense.
I mean,
the people I consider to be my best
(08:05):
friends,
the ones I can reliably confide in for
any number of reasons,
are also the people I can count on for
a good roast.
We always make fun of each other.
And I would love to say that I'm the
one who does the most roasting,
but that just wouldn't be true.
The truth is, I'm an easy mark.
And I'm not quite witty enough to be
the best roaster.
(08:26):
I've always been the butt of the joke.
I'm used to it.
Hang on, I'm going to write that down.
I probably need to talk to my therapist
about that.
So yeah,
you might be able to relate to this.
Think about your own best friends.
Do you roast each other?
Do you find you can trust those people
better because you can playfully roast
each other?
Or have you never really thought about
(08:47):
it that way?
Okay, so I'm hooked.
I jumped down to the comments section.
Wait, where's the link?
There's no link?
So, how are they making money on this?
Okay, so now I'm even more confused.
I mean,
obviously this group just shared a meme
about this study,
(09:08):
and they forgot to include the link,
right?
Hello?
Now I have to turn to old faithful
Google.
You know,
where most good research starts, right?
Search term.
Study finds roasting friends.
Now, my search results are pretty vast,
but they all seem to be about the same
(09:30):
thing.
What's concerning is that a few of
these go back to posts from social
media.
Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok,
etc.
But I do get some news articles in
here.
Let's go there.
News articles generally have links to
sources.
Surely,
they wouldn't make something up.
Now,
I'm assuming this is a fairly new study,
(09:51):
so I'm going to start with anything
from 2025.
Here's one from March of this year,
Fox 2 Now,
which appears to be a local Fox
affiliate out of St.
Louis.
This is Blair's Social Second by Blair
Ledet,
and it's titled Do You Insult or Roast
Your Friends for Fun?
I'm looking for a study link.
(10:13):
Second paragraph.
A recent study reveals that friends who
playfully insult each other are 300%
more loyal and honest.
The study claims light-hearted jabs
strengthen bonds and create deeper
trust and openness.
Okay, Blair, cool quote.
I'm in.
Now,
since this is Blair's Social Second,
(10:35):
this article is mostly Blair's
commentary along with some comments she
collected from readers.
Not that interesting to me, but okay.
So, give me the link, Blair.
Blair, where is the link?
Where is the link to the study, Blair?
Hey, Fox 2 out of St.
(10:56):
Louis, did you know...
about this?
Did you know there is no link to this
study?
Do you guys make a habit of not sharing
your sources?
I mean,
it's not that hard to include a hyperlink.
You've got links to all sorts of stuff
I don't need all over this page.
What about the study?
What about journalistic integrity?
(11:18):
Hey, Fox2 now out of St.
Louis, where the hell is my study link?
Where is my damn link?
Alright, back to Google.
Like, surely someone has this.
I've got this one from East Coast
Radio, also published in March.
It's titled Our Friends Who Roast You
(11:39):
More Loyal.
With the tagline,
some of the strongest friendships are
built on insults.
Okay, source, source.
Okay, the source, get this,
is Fox2 now.
I mean,
at least East Coast Radio cited a
source,
but we just found out that their source
didn't share a source.
(12:01):
In this same article,
there's a video clip from the I've Had
It podcast.
From the amount of likes on Instagram,
this is obviously a podcast that is far
more popular than mine.
That's fine.
Maybe they have a link.
Nope.
They just repeated the same statement.
New study finds that friends who often
playfully insult each other are 300%
(12:21):
more honest and loyal.
Guys, where the fuck is my link?
There's nothing else meaningful in this
Google search.
Let's go to Google Scholar.
Remember,
I'm trying to find out about this
recent study,
so I'm looking at 2024 to present.
Okay,
study finds roasting friends is my
(12:41):
search term.
I've got roasting wheat,
roasting peanuts, roasting politicians.
Okay,
maybe the word roasting is my problem.
What's a more academic term for
roasting?
Insulting?
Banter?
Okay, insulting friends.
Insulting friends loyalty.
(13:02):
You know what?
I'm not really a fan of Google Scholar,
and I'm not getting anything anyway.
Let's try my school library databases.
Okay, peer reviewed journals,
2023 to 2025.
Insulting friends, nothing.
Some stuff about cyberbullying.
Roasting friends, nothing.
(13:25):
Banter and loyalty, nothing.
I've got nothing, folks.
This is about to be the shortest study
finds episode ever.
Alright,
maybe back to the Google search and
look for something a little older.
Maybe it wasn't recent after all.
Here's one from the swaddle.
I don't know the swaddle,
so my expectations are low.
(13:48):
This one is from 2020,
written by Aditi Murti, titled,
research shows we all should absolutely
absolutely,
relentlessly roast our friends.
Tagline.
Disparagement humor,
the fancy term for your sick burns,
acts as a social lubricant,
putting people at ease around each
other.
Social lubricant?
(14:08):
Okay.
Well,
at least we're in the same theme and
we've got an academic term,
disparagement humor.
I'm probably going to take that back to
the library for another search,
but let's look at this first to see if
there are any links.
I do have a full-width picture of
Chelsea Peretti from her role in
Brooklyn Nine-Nine.
I love her and I love that show.
(14:30):
I don't remember if I finished it or
not, but many great moments.
The first link is embedded in this
sentence.
According to family slash parenting
beat reporter and author KJ Del
Antonio,
pro-social teasing among your friends
is known to reveal affiliations and
help friends become closer.
(14:51):
That link goes to an article in the New
York Times from 2012 and that article
has another link to quote-unquote
research which leads to a 404 error.
Dead end.
But we've got another search term,
prosocial teasing.
Next link is to an article by Dr.
Peter Gray in Psychology Today titled
(15:12):
The Educative Value of Teasing and it's
from 2013.
This is not a peer-reviewed article and
Dr.
Gray's sources point to things even
older and he even cited another article
authored by himself.
Fine.
Now I've got nothing else from the
swaddle and I'm not finding recent
research so let's take our new terms
(15:33):
and see if we can come up with
something.
Starting with disparagement humor and
now I'm expanding my search to the last
five years,
again looking only for peer-reviewed
journal articles.
If it's truly a study,
that's where we will find it.
I have one that is political identity
moderates evaluations of disparagement
(15:54):
humor,
another one that's disparagement humor
permits unsafe COVID-19 behaviors,
diminished self-concept and social
exclusion,
disparagement humor from the targets
perspective.
This whole list is really studies on
the negative impacts of disparagement
humor and most of them specifically
target things like gender identity,
(16:16):
race, sexual orientation, obesity,
violence and the overall perpetuation
of offensiveness and prejudice.
Out of 58 results,
none of them are pointing towards a
positive result and none are about
friendship.
So when I add friendship to the search
to narrow the results,
I've got one qualitative study that has
(16:40):
the word ambiguity in the title and
doesn't appear to be completely against
disparagement humor.
We'll pocket that for now and look at
the other term.
Okay,
using the term pro-social teasing.
I've got a small handful of results and
I think one of these studies is going
to give us a good picture of some
recent research into this topic.
(17:01):
Alright,
so I'm going to briefly go through
these two different studies and we're
going to see if there is anything here
that points to the claim that we
started with,
that friends who insult each other are
300% more loyal and trustworthy.
This first one published by Johannesen
in 2021 in a journal called Young,
(17:22):
is titled Blurred Lines,
the Ambiguity of Disparaging Humor and
Slurs in Norwegian High School Boys
Friendship Groups.
This study took place in Norway and
they used a qualitative approach
consisting of participant observation
and individual interviews with students
to look at the use of disparaging humor
and slurs amongst high school boys.
(17:44):
Now,
Anytime you take a qualitative approach
to research,
you are embarking on a very long and
arduous journey,
and it feels like you are fumbling
around in the dark for what seems like
the rest of eternity.
There are generally accepted methods
for coding and organizing data obtained
from interviews and things like that,
and of course there is software to
(18:05):
help,
and it looks like this author used
those things.
I will give them the benefit of the
doubt.
I would hope they'd do the same for me.
Honestly,
qualitative research is really supposed
to be used to explore concepts that
have never been researched before so
that you can identify themes that can
later be used for quantitative
(18:25):
research.
You need both.
So here's what they've found from all
of these interviews and observations.
Basically,
high school boys pretty often use
disparagement humor.
A lot of this humor is prejudice and
discriminatory in nature,
often including racial slurs and gay
slurs.
(18:46):
However,
they found that the intent behind this
humor was not linked to discriminatory
or prejudiced attitudes or practices.
They are specifically pointing out that
the lines between harmful and harmless
disparagement humor are blurred and
inherently complex.
Generally,
the boys felt that this humor was
necessary to maintaining friendships
(19:07):
and they felt they should be able to
joke about anything.
There were also some weird nuances to
this,
and if you've been in these environments
you might be familiar with these
nuances.
For example,
the boys did indicate that they tended
to be more careful about using slurs
when someone who was gay or belonged to
a minority race were present.
(19:28):
The author also observed that students
who belonged to minority groups often
used self-deprecating likely as a
strategic way to combat or diffuse
tensions or manage emotions.
The author states that what is unknown
is what would happen to these
friendships if someone was hurt by a
joke made and actually spoke up about
(19:48):
it.
Even if they are hurt,
they may not speak up about it because
the friendship is more important and
having positive friendships has been
associated with success in school.
Now,
the real kicker to this study is that
this makes discipline very difficult
and complex for teachers.
Teachers often crack down on the
(20:09):
language used in disparaging humor
because it is commonly and logically
linked to bullying, racism,
and discrimination.
But because the boys have positive
results in their friendships by
engaging in this type of humor,
the eradication of such behavior is
very difficult.
The author suggests that ultimately
this needs to be explored more and for
(20:30):
now,
it may be important for teachers to
work through both the positive and
negative aspects to disparaging humor.
Now, with qualitative studies,
we don't get scores,
we don't get numbers like 300%.
So this isn't the study we were looking
for.
However,
it is basically the only study in my
(20:51):
results that seemed to be any kind of
supportive of disparagement humor.
So let's look at the one about
prosocial teasing.
This study by Platt and colleagues was
published in 2022 in a journal called
Psychology in the Schools.
It's titled You Can't Sit With Us.
Just kidding.
An investigation into the association
(21:13):
between empathy and prosocial teasing.
The authors aim to examine the
relationship between prosocial teasing
as a form of relational aggression and
empathy among fifth grade students in
the Midwest United States.
The reason I wanted to look at this
article specifically is because the
authors give a background on both
aggression and prosocial teasing.
(21:34):
If we're looking for supportive
information, it should be there.
First,
the authors made the distinction between
physical and relational aggression,
noting that both may have proactive and
reactive elements.
Relational aggression, specifically,
refers to behaviors intended to
threaten or harm friendships or one's
feelings of belonging to a group.
(21:56):
This includes spreading rumors,
exclusion of a peer from a group,
and threats to withdraw friendships.
Of course,
it has been associated with negative
outcomes.
Another interesting piece here is that
there is conflicting information on the
difference between boys and girls using
aggression.
An early study back in 1995 suggested
that girls were more likely to use
(22:18):
relational aggression while boys were
more likely to use physical aggression.
Another study in 2003 found no
difference between boys and girls using
relational aggression and a second
study also in 2003 found that boys were
more likely to use relational
aggression than girls.
Then one more study in 2009 found that
(22:40):
when they controlled for physical
aggression,
girls were more likely to use
relational aggression than boys.
Is your head spinning?
Actually, that's a good thing.
When we have conflicting results from
multiple studies,
it means we need to continue to do
bigger and broader research looking at
many different factors.
Most importantly,
this illustrates that no one study will
(23:02):
ever serve as the source of truth.
Let me repeat that.
No one study will ever serve as the
source of truth for any given
relationship between variables.
You cannot get causation from one
study.
You need many studies with repeated
measures and big samples to get really
(23:24):
strong correlations, and in fact,
you may never really get to causation.
Okay,
so let's look at their background on
prosocial teasing.
Prosocial teasing, the authors say,
is generally defined as an ambiguous
social provocation that is intended to
playfully express something to the
(23:45):
target.
It includes elements of aggression,
humor or play,
and ambiguity to convey a positive
message to the target of the tease
despite the negative face value of the
words or actions being used.
Now,
the impact of prosocial teasing is qualified
by the relationship.
Even if the teaser had positive
(24:06):
intentions,
the impact of prosocial teasing may
harm the relationship if the
relationship between the teaser and the
receiver is not established.
On the other hand,
if two people have a close
relationship,
the receiver could perceive the same
comment in a more positive way and with
better intentions.
Furthermore,
(24:27):
the authors say that despite the
negative associations between
aggression and youth outcomes for both
physical and relational aggression,
there is growing evidence that the more
playful versions of aggression may be
related to positive outcomes.
Okay, here we go.
300%.
Let's see.
The authors point out that previous
(24:47):
studies may indicate that prosocial
teasing has been found to strengthen
friendships and build stronger bonds
between people.
Now,
here's where I'm going to go down a
rabbit hole to find my answer to the
question we started with.
Stick with me.
I'll include the citations for these
studies in the episode notes,
but I'm not going too deep here for
time's sake.
(25:08):
Basically,
the study by Gorman and Jordan in 2015
found that teasing is more likely to be
interpreted positively when
relationships are close,
and being closer can enhance the
positive interpretation of teasing.
What that doesn't tell us is whether
teasing enhances the relationship.
That's what we were looking for from
(25:30):
the start.
Instead,
this study shows that it's the other
way around,
but they do reference a couple of
articles by Keltner and colleagues that
apparently may show us what we're
looking for.
The study to support what we're looking
for here just so happens to be one that
was published way back in 1998.
(25:51):
The authors studied participants from a
fraternity at the University of
Wisconsin-Madison.
They had a total of 48 participants,
and they were encouraged to tease each
other as they normally would,
and various measurements were taken and
observations were made.
What we are looking for is the answer
to their second research question.
How might teasing relate to increased
(26:13):
affiliation?
In their analysis,
they found that overall prosocial
teasing significantly correlated with
increased flirtation, positive emotion,
reduced negative emotion,
and increased positive relative to
negative emotion.
What we don't have is a 300% number.
(26:34):
Okay,
now we need to dig back out of this
rabbit hole.
It's...
Not because we've hit a dead end,
it's because we need to come back to
the whole reason we went down this path
in the first place.
Here's the deal.
We never found the study that was the
subject of that Facebook post I found.
There was no link.
(26:54):
We never found the study that was the
subject of the article posted by Fox2
now out of St. Louis
They did not post a link.
And none of the results of the studies
we did find provide any evidence to
back up their claim.
Even if they were favorable to the
notion of teasing being supportive of
friendships.
What did we find?
Number one,
(27:14):
disparagement humor is complex.
It can be important to certain
friendships,
but it can also hurt people.
Number two,
prosocial teasing is also complex.
It is rooted in relational aggression,
but it has positive intent.
Number three,
the positive reception of teasing may
be dependent on the closeness of the
(27:36):
relationship.
Number four,
the closeness of the relationship may
be enhanced by teasing,
the extent to which is unclear.
Number five,
no single study may serve as the source
of truth for anything,
and multiple studies that seemingly
examine the same concepts may produce
different results.
(27:56):
Finally,
and I cannot stress this enough,
number six, Fox2 now out of St.
Louis.
I am addressing you directly.
You have egregiously violated
journalistic integrity by perpetuating
the claim of a study that does not
exist.
Fox2 now out of St.
Louis.
You are on notice.
(28:17):
Cite your damn sources.
Okay, we're coming up on the end now,
and I want to share that small thought
I had the other day.
It's this.
Be curious.
Be comfortable when you don't have a
conclusion.
Let the absence of conclusions spark
more curiosity.
When you are presented with an idea
(28:39):
that goes against what you think is
true, don't just dismiss it.
Be curious.
And when you're presented with an idea
that does align with what you already
think is true,
don't just automatically accept it.
Be curious.
When you have a gap in knowledge,
don't fill it with assumptions.
Fill it with curiosity.
(29:02):
That's it.
Soft.
I know.
But this is how research starts.
Be curious.
Not asumptive.
Oh,
so this week I got to meet up with Dr.
Todd Loushine once again to present at
the ABC Safety Champions Conference in
Orlando.
Thanks to my friend Tim Bernardi,
we got to expand on the conversation we
had back in episode 102 of this
(29:23):
podcast, and I did record the session.
Once I have some time to go through
this and make edits,
you can look forward to hearing that
conversation on a brand new episode of
this podcast in the coming weeks.
Between now and then,
I will be logging many hours in Mario
Kart on my new Nintendo Switch 2,
and I may or may not make myself
available for anything outside of that.
(29:45):
Just being honest.
Until next time, I'm Dr.
Matt Law,
this has been another episode of The
Study Finds on the Prove It To Me
Podcast.
Take care and stay safe, everyone.
(30:12):
Prove It To Me is produced by me,
Matt Law, original music by Wes London.
You can find this podcast on Podbean,
Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube,
Amazon Music, and iHeartRadio.
Like what you've heard so far?
Please like, subscribe,
and follow wherever you get your
podcasts,
and leave a 5-star review on Apple
Podcasts.
Got questions about what we talked
(30:32):
about or research that you want to
share?
Send an email to contact at proveitpod
.com.
The views and opinions expressed in
this podcast are those of the host and
its guests and do not necessarily
represent the official position,
opinion,
or strategies of their employers or
companies.
Examples of research and data analysis
discussed within this podcast are only
(30:53):
examples.
They should not be utilized in the real
world as the only solution available as
they are based on very limited,
often single use case,
and sometimes dated information.
Assumptions made within this discussion
about research and data analyses are
not necessarily representative of the
position of the host, the guests,
or their employers or companies.
No part of this podcast may be
reproduced,
(31:14):
stored in a retrieval system,
or transmitted in any form or by any
means mechanical, electronic,
recording,
or otherwise without prior written
permission of the creator of the
podcast.
The presentation of the content by the
guests does not necessarily constitute
an active endorsement of the content by
the host.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.