All Episodes

July 13, 2025 28 mins

Understanding Workplace Gaslighting: Causes, Effects, and Solutions

In this episode of PsyberSpace, host Leslie Poston explores the psychological concept of gaslighting, with a focus on its manifestation in the workplace. Leslie digs into how workplace gaslighting mirrors interpersonal abuse, creating a toxic environment where employees doubt their reality. Examples include management minimizing concerns, contradicting realities, and fostering toxic positivity. The episode also discusses the impact on mental health, job satisfaction, and organizational effectiveness. Leslie offers strategies for identifying, documenting, and resisting gaslighting, as well as advice for leaders to create a supportive and transparent work environment.

00:00 Introduction to Workplace Gaslighting
01:23 Origins and Mechanisms of Gaslighting
03:07 Gaslighting in Organizational Settings
03:30 Research and Patterns of Workplace Gaslighting
08:47 Psychological Impact on Employees
13:55 Gaslighting in Layoffs and Corporate Communication
18:45 Why Employees Stay in Toxic Workplaces
23:54 Strategies to Combat Workplace Gaslighting
27:05 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Research
(note: more research can be found in our Season 1 episode on Gaslighting in personal relationships, as well)

Collinson, D. (1994). Strategies of resistance: Power, knowledge and subjectivity in the workplace. In J. M. Jermier, D. Knights, & W. R. Nord (Eds.), Resistance and power in organizations (pp. 25–68). Taylor & Frances/Routledge.
D'Cruz, P., & Noronha, E. (2011). The limits of emotional workplace friendship: Managerialist HRM bystander behaviour in the context of workplace bullying. Employee Relations. 33(3):269-288

Dickson, P., Ireland, J. L., & Birch, P. (2023). Gaslighting and its application to interpersonal violence. Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice, 9(1), 31-46. 

Dorpat, T. L. (1996). Gaslighting, the double whammy, interrogation, and other methods of covert control in psychotherapy and analysis. Jason Aronson.

Edmondson, A. C., & Lei, Z. (2014). Psychological safety: The history, renaissance, and future of an interpersonal construct. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 1(1), 23–43. 

El-Sayed, A. A. I., et al. (2025). Navigating toxicity: Investigating the interplay between workplace gaslighting, workaholism, and agility among nurses. Nursing Inquiry

Gabriel, Y. (2012). Organizations in a state of darkness: towards a theory of organizational miasma. Organization Studies, 33(9), 1137-1152. 

Graves, C. G., & Samp, J. A. (2021). The power to gaslight. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 38(11), 3378-3386.

Hogh, A., Hoel, H., & Carneiro, I. G. (2011). Bullying and employee turnover among healthcare workers: A three-wave prospective study. Journal of Nursing Management, 19(6), 742–751. 

Kukreja, P., & Pandey, J. (2023). Workplace gaslighting: Conceptualization, development, and validation of a scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 14. 

Leunissen, J. M., Sedikides, C., Wildschut, T., & Cohen, T. R. (2016). Organizational nostalgia lowers turnover intentions by increasing work meaning: The moderating role of burnout. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology

Leunissen, J. M., van Dijke, M., Wildschut, T., & Sedikides, C. (2023). Organizational nostalgia: The construct, the scale and its implications for organizational functioning. British Journal of Management

Sebring, J. (2021). Towards a sociological understanding of medical gaslighting in Western health care. Sociology of Health & Illness, 43(9), 1951–1964

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness: On depression, development, and death. Freeman.

Sweet, P. L. (2019). The sociology of gaslighting. American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851–875. 

★ Support this podcast ★
Mark as Played
Transcript

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Leslie Poston (00:11):
Welcome back to PsyberSpace. I'm your host,
Leslie Poston. Today, we'retalking about something that
might sound like a buzzword buthas very real psychological

roots (00:22):
gaslighting. And more specifically, how it shows up
not just in toxic relationshipsor politics but in the places
where we work. You might havefelt it before and didn't have a
name for it.
Maybe you were laid off aftermonths of being told your job
was safe. Maybe you've beenworking in an office that

(00:44):
insists it's like a family butroutinely throws people under
the bus. Or maybe you work inhealthcare, education, or
government sectors that aresupposed to protect people and
you're watching your values gettwisted and used against you by
people in charge. Whatever yoursituation, one thing is clear:

(01:06):
you're not imagining it. Andyou're not alone.
Let's talk about the psychologyof gaslighting in the what it
is, why it works, and how it'sharming people at scale, and
also what you can do about it.The term gaslighting comes from

(01:26):
the 1938 play Gaslight, where aman manipulates his wife into
questioning her perception ofreality. In the story, the
husband dims the gaslights intheir home while denying that
the lighting has changed, makinghis wife doubt her own senses.
It became clinically significantin psychology decades later as

(01:48):
researchers began to documenthow some people weaponize trust,
confusion, and denial todestabilize others. We cover
gaslighting in personalrelationships in-depth in an
episode in season one, but torefresh your memory, gaslighting
is a tactic of psychologicalabuse.

(02:09):
It relies on denying what isplainly true, reframing events
to make the victim feelirrational or forgetful, and
slowly eroding confidence inone's own thoughts, feelings,
and experiences. The abusercreates what psychologists call
reality distortion, a systematicundermining of the victim's

(02:31):
ability to trust their ownperceptions. Gaslighting
involves covert control tacticssuch as persistent
contradiction, emotionalinvalidation, and distortion of
facts used to dominate ratherthan to communicate. It's not
about telling a single lie. It'sabout making someone doubt their

(02:53):
entire sense of reality overtime.
The process is gradual andinsidious. Victims often don't
realize what's happening untiltheir sense of self has been
significantly damaged. Butgaslighting doesn't only happen
between individuals.Institutions do it too,

(03:13):
especially when thoseinstitutions want to preserve
power without accountability.What we're seeing now is that
the same psychologicalmechanisms that work in
interpersonal abuse translateremarkably well to
organizational settings.
Recent research has validatedwhat many workers have felt

(03:34):
intuitively. Studies now showthat workplace gaslighting is a
measurable phenomenon withdistinct patterns. Researchers
have identified two coredimensions, trivialization where
concerns are minimized ordismissed, and affliction where
employees are made to feel theirperceptions are fundamentally

(03:56):
flawed. These aren't justdifferent types of bad
management. There are specificpsychological manipulation
tactics that follow predictablepatterns.
What makes workplace gaslightingso terrible is that it often
happens where powerdifferentials exist. A
supervisor might consistentlyundermine a subordinate's

(04:19):
confidence, not through outrightaggression, but through subtle
erosion of their reality. Theemployee begins to question
whether they're overreacting,whether they're remembering
meetings correctly, whetherthey're just too sensitive. The
research shows that people whoengage in gaslighting behaviors
often score high on narcissisticpersonality traits. Some

(04:43):
gaslighters may not even beconsciously aware of what
they're doing.
They've learned that thesetactics work to maintain their
control and avoid accountabilityso they continue using them.
This unconscious quality makesworkplace gaslighting even more
difficult to address because asmall percentage of the

(05:03):
perpetrators may genuinelybelieve they're being helpful or
supportive while simultaneouslyundermining their employees'
reality. Workplaces often usegaslighting in more subtle,
systemic ways than an abusivepartner might, But the
psychological impact isstrikingly similar. Consider how

(05:27):
companies talk about mentalhealth. They might roll out a
wellness app or tell employeesto prioritize self care while
simultaneously demanding unpaidovertime, denying flexible
schedules, or laying off halfthe team without warning.
We've seen companies post aboutMental Health Awareness Month on

(05:47):
LinkedIn while their employeesare working seventy hour weeks
to meet impossible deadlines. Orthink about how diversity,
equity, and inclusioninitiatives are announced with
fanfare, complete with pressreleases and executive
statements, only to be quietlydismantled later with leaders
insisting that nothing haschanged. This messaging creates

(06:11):
a profound cognitive dissonance.Employees know what they're
experiencing, but the officialnarrative tells them their
experience isn't real. When youbring up the contradiction,
you're told you're focusing onthe negative or not seeing the
big picture.
That's not just mixed messaging.It's institutional gaslighting.

(06:32):
Take the example of return tooffice mandates. Many companies
spent the first part of thisongoing pandemic praising remote
work, celebrating productivitygains, and talking about how
they learned that flexibilitymakes employees happier and more
effective. Then almostovernight, that narrative

(06:53):
shifted.
Suddenly, remote work has beendescribed as harmful to
collaboration, innovation, andcompany culture. Employees who
question this reversal are toldthat they're not team players or
don't understand the business'sneeds. The companies don't
acknowledge that anything haschanged. They simply act as if

(07:13):
the previous two years of praisefor remote work never happened.
The health care sector providessome of the most stark examples.
Medical institutions promotewellness and healing while
subjecting their own staff toconditions that directly
undermine both. When nursesreport dangerous patient to

(07:34):
staff ratios, they're often toldthey need to be more adaptable
or resilient. The systemicproblem gets reframed as a
personal failing. A recent studyof nurses found that workplace
gaslighting was directly linkedto increased workaholism and
decreased workplace agility.Essentially, gaslighting was

(07:56):
making health care workers lesseffective at the very jobs they
were being gaslit about.
This extends to howorganizations handled
discrimination complaints.Rather than investigating bias
concerns, leadership oftenreframes the concern as
negativity or a misunderstandingof company culture or a

(08:17):
misunderstanding that someonemust have had good intent even
if the outcome was harmful. Theinstitution avoids introspection
by recasting the truth teller asdisruptive. It's a classic
gaslighting move. Make theperson bringing up the problem
into the problem.
The complaint gets buried underlayers of HR processes and

(08:39):
employee development plansdesigned to fix the complainant
rather than address theunderlying issue. Gaslighting in
workplaces is about more thanconfusion. It's about control.
Organizations often usegaslighting to avoid
accountability, managereputation, and reinforce

(08:59):
existing hierarchies. It pairsparticularly well with toxic
positivity, the forced optimismthat demands everyone smile
through dysfunction and withvague corporate values like
excellence, grit, andprofessionalism, which can be
weaponized against anyone whoquestions authority.

(09:20):
The intersection of gaslightingand toxic positivity creates
what we call a double bind foremployees. They're told that
expressing negative emotions isunprofessional, but they're also
expected to be authentic andbring their whole selves to
work. When they try to addresslegitimate concerns, they're
accused of being negative. Whenthey suppress their concerns to

(09:43):
maintain positivity, they'retold they're not being honest
about problems. It's a no winsituation that keeps employees
constantly off balance andquestioning their own judgment.
Recent research has shown howtoxic positivity functions as a
form of emotional suppressionthat creates physical stress.

(10:04):
When people are forced tosuppress negative emotions,
their heart rates increase andtheir stress responses activate.
Over time, this constantemotional labor takes a serious
toll on both mental and physicalhealth. What's cruel about
workplace gaslighting is that itoften targets the very people

(10:24):
who are trying to improve theorganization, the ones who care
enough to speak up about theproblems. This is especially
visible in how companies handleinternal criticism.
A worker raises concerns aboutbias in hiring practices, and
instead of investigating,leadership reframes the concern

(10:44):
as negativity. Suddenly, thecritic is disruptive. The
institution avoids introspectionby recasting the truth teller as
the problem. I've seen thispattern play out countless
times. An employee notices apattern of discrimination,
reports it through properchannels, and then finds
themselves labeled as difficultor not a cultural fit.

(11:08):
The gaslighting often escalateswhen the employee persists. They
might be told they'remisinterpreting situations, that
they're looking for problemsthat aren't there, or that
they're creating drama.Management might even suggest
they need coaching orprofessional development to
improve their interpersonalskills or emotional

(11:28):
intelligence. The message isclear. The problem isn't the
discrimination.
The problem is your reaction toit. The intersection of
gaslighting and toxic positivitycreates what we call emotional
labor demands where workers areexpected to manage not just
their productivity but theirentire emotional presentation to

(11:51):
protect the organization'simage. This is especially
harmful for women and peoplefrom marginalized communities
who already face pressure toappear agreeable and
nonthreatening. Research showsthat women in particular are
often subject to workplacegaslighting when they express
concerns or push back againstunfair treatment, with their

(12:13):
feelings being dismissed asemotional or irrational. The
literature shows that people inmarginalized groups are
especially vulnerable togaslighting because they're
already dealing with societalmessages that their experiences
aren't valid.
When workplace gaslightingcompounds this, it can create a
devastating sense of isolationand self doubt. Over time, this

(12:37):
has a serious psychologicaleffect. Employees begin to doubt
their instincts. They questionwhether they're overreacting and
wonder if the stress they feelis a personal failure rather
than a rational response tomanipulation. Studies have
documented the long termconsequences of this kind of
environment.
One by DeCruz and Aronja lookedat emotional labor in call

(13:00):
centers and found that workersexperienced a kind of reality
shock, an internal dissonancebetween what they were told
about their jobs and what theyactually experienced. Another by
Hoff, Hoehl, and Carneroconnected workplace bullying to
increased turnover andpsychological distress in health
care environments. When peopleare consistently told that their

(13:22):
reasonable reactions areirrational, it's no wonder they
begin to burn out, check out, orbreak down. The psychological
toll extends beyond individualemployees. Research also shows
that workplaces with high levelsof gaslighting behaviors
experienced decreasedinnovation, reduced
psychological safety, andincreased turnover.

(13:45):
Teams become less willing tosurface problems or challenge
ineffective processes when theyknow their concerns will be
invalidated. One of the clearestexamples of corporate
gaslighting is in how companieshandle layoffs. Let's say a
company spends months assuringemployees that their jobs are

(14:06):
safe. Leaders hold town halls,send reassuring memos, and
double down on promises. Thenwith no warning, entire teams
are cut.
The messaging shifts instantly.We've made the difficult
decision to restructure. Thisisn't about performance or we're
so grateful for yourcontributions. These statements

(14:29):
sound caring on the surface, butthey are carefully crafted to
avoid accountability. Employeesare left reeling, confused not
just by the loss of their job,but by the dissonance between
what they were told and whathappened.
That's textbook gaslighting.Organizations use language like
realignment and streamlining tosoften the blow, but what

(14:52):
they're really doing isdistancing leadership from the
impact of their choices. Theemotional harm is repackaged as
strategic vision. Corporatestorytelling is often used to
rewrite unpleasant truths inways that protect the
organization's image even at theexpense of its people's
well-being. The language aroundlayoffs has become increasingly

(15:15):
sophisticated in itsmanipulation.
Companies talk aboutrightsizing, optimization, and
transformation while people losetheir livelihoods. They might
frame layoffs as a tough butnecessary decision while
simultaneously posting recordprofits or giving executives
massive bonuses. The cognitivedissonance is intentional. It's

(15:39):
designed to make you questionwhether you have a right to be
upset about losing your job.I've seen companies hold
celebration events afterlayoffs, focusing on the
exciting opportunities ahead forthe remaining team.
They'll talk about how theorganization is now leaner and
more focused, as if firingpeople was actually a gift to

(16:00):
everyone involved. Employees whoexpress grief or anger about
their colleagues' departures aretold they're dwelling in the
past or not embracing change.Exit interviews become exercises
in gaslighting where departingemployees are asked to frame
their experience positively forthe sake of closure and
learning. Questions are designedto extract admissions that the

(16:25):
layoff was necessary or evenbeneficial, such as what could
you have done differently tocontribute more value? How do
you think this change willbenefit the company going
forward?
The subtext is clear. Your jobloss is partly your fault, and
you should be grateful for thelearning experience. This
manipulation extends to howcompanies communicate with

(16:48):
remaining employees. Survivorsare told that layoffs were based
on performance even wheneveryone knows that they were
based on salary cost,departmental politics, or
shareholder value. This createsa climate of fear where people
start to believe that theirsurvival means they're more
valuable when in reality, itmight just mean they're cheaper

(17:10):
or less willing to push backagainst unreasonable demands.
Companies often use nostalgia asa gaslighting tool during
layoffs. They'll reference thegood old days when a company was
a family while simultaneouslydestroying that sense of
security and community. Researchon organizational nostalgia

(17:31):
shows how leaders use idealizedmemories to manipulate employees
into accepting presentdysfunction. They'll say things
like we need to get back to ourentrepreneurial roots, as if
firing half the workforce issomehow a return to company
values rather than a response topoor leadership decisions. This

(17:51):
is especially brutal in publicsector work where people often
enter the field to do good.
When mission driven institutionsuse the same manipulative
tactics as profit hungrycorporations, it hits harder. It
feels like a betrayal, not justof a job, but of a purpose.
Teachers are told budget cutsare opportunities to be

(18:14):
creative. Social workers aretold that increased caseloads
will help them developefficiency. The mission becomes
a weapon against the peopletrying to fulfill it.
The psychological impact extendsto survivors as well. Remaining
employees often experience whatwe call survivor's guilt and a

(18:34):
longing for how things used tobe. Management exploits these
feelings, suggesting thatloyalty means accepting whatever
conditions remain withoutcomplaint. So if gaslighting is
so harmful, why do people stay?Part of the answer is learned
helplessness, a conceptintroduced by psychologist

(18:56):
Martin Seligman in the 70s.
When people are repeatedlyexposed to situations where they
have no control over theoutcome, they begin to
internalize that powerlessness.Even when escape or change
becomes possible, they may notbelieve it's real. Gaslighting
accelerates this process andwears down resistance. It

(19:17):
creates a sense that speaking upwon't help and that leaving
might be worse. There's also theissue of identity fusion when
people's sense of self becomestied to their role or their
employer.
If you believe that your job ispart of who you are, then
questioning the company feelslike questioning yourself.
That's especially true in fieldslike education, science, or

(19:41):
health care where the work isoften framed as a calling. The
institution exploits thisdedication by suggesting that
truly committed professionalsshould be willing to endure any
conditions for the sake of themission. Recent research has
shown us that employees inhelping professions teachers,
nurses, social workers areparticularly vulnerable to

(20:05):
workplace gaslighting becausetheir professional identity is
tied to service and sacrifice.When institutions exploit this
dedication by framingunreasonable demands as part of
the mission, it becomes harderfor workers to separate their
professional worth from theirwillingness to endure
mistreatment.
I've talked to teachers who weretold that requesting

(20:27):
reevaluation of over fall 40student class sizes meant they
didn't really care about kids ornurses who were told that
questioning mandatory overtimemeant they weren't committed to
patient care. The economicreality compounds this
psychological manipulation.People stay because they need

(20:47):
health insurance, becausethey're caretakers, because the
job market is unstable, becauseleaving might mean starting over
in a new field entirely. Theinstitution knows this and uses
it as leverage. They can pushpeople further and further
because they know most employeescan't afford to just quit.
But this doesn't mean thatpeople are fooled. It means

(21:09):
they're stuck and oftenexhausted. The psychological
literature on workplace traumashows that people in gaslighting
environments often develop aform of cognitive dissonance
where they simultaneously knowsomething is wrong and doubt
their own perceptions. Thisinternal conflict is exhausting

(21:30):
and can lead to depression,anxiety, and even physical
symptoms. One of the worstaspects of workplace gaslighting
is how it affects people'scareers long term.
When you've been repeatedly toldthat your perceptions are wrong,
you start to doubt yourprofessional judgment. You
become less likely to trust yourinstincts about new

(21:51):
opportunities, less confident ininterviews, and less willing to
advocate for yourself. Thedamage extends far beyond the
toxic workplace. It follows youwherever you go. For many
workers, especially thosesupporting families or dealing
with visa restrictions, thepower dynamic makes resistance
feel impossible.

(22:13):
The institution holds not justtheir income but their entire
future in their hands. Thiscreates a form of economic
coercion that makes gaslightingespecially effective. When
questioning your boss could meanlosing your work visa or your
family's health insurance, thepsychological pressure to just
accept their version of realitybecomes overwhelming. The

(22:38):
isolation factor is critical aswell. Gaslighting works best
when victims are cut off fromreality checks.
In workplace settings, thismight mean being excluded from
certain meetings, having yourconcerns dismissed in front of
colleagues, or being assigned towork alone. When you can't
compare notes with others, itbecomes much easier to doubt

(23:00):
your own perceptions. And Ishould insert a side note to
this conversation. If you areautistic, have ADHD, or ADHD, or
other neurodivergence in theworkplace, gaslighting is
especially harmful to you, andyou may have a strong sense of
justice that inspires you tospeak truth to power as part of

(23:24):
your everyday reality or to askclarifying questions, which can
come across as challenges to aneurotypical. This makes
workplace gaslighting so muchworse, And it's one of the
reasons why autistic people tendto be less employed and to get
fired more often.
However, I thought that thisdeserved its own episode. So in

(23:47):
a few weeks, come back, and I'mgoing to talk about that
in-depth. So what do you do ifyou recognize this happening
where you work? First, name it.When you identify gaslighting as
a form of manipulation ratherthan a personal failing, you
begin to take back yourperception.

(24:09):
It's not about being toosensitive. It's about being lied
to in a way designed to make youquestion yourself. Second,
document. In environments wherereality is constantly shifting,
having a personal record of whatwas said and when and by who can
be a powerful tool for clarityand validation. It also helps

(24:30):
resist the narrative rewritingthat gaslighting relies on.
Keep emails, take notes aftermeetings, record calls and
meetings if it's legal in yourstate, and maintain a timeline
of events. This isn't paranoiaIt's protection. And don't
forget to keep those records offyour work laptop as well. Third,

(24:50):
find allies. Gaslighting thrivesin isolation.
But when people talk to eachother, sharing notes, comparing
experiences, and resisting theculture of secrecy, it becomes
harder for institutions tomaintain the illusion. Employee
resource groups, unions, andinformal networks can provide
reality checking and support.Fourth, practice self care that

(25:15):
includes emotional validation.This means accepting that your
negative feelings about toxicsituations are appropriate and
healthy. It means resisting thepressure to stay positive when
positivity is being used tosilence legitimate concerns.
Sometimes the most radical thingyou can do at work is trust your

(25:36):
own perception. And fifth, ifyou're in a position of
leadership, recognize the longterm damage that gaslighting
does. Psychological safety is afoundational part of trust and
innovation. You can't have ahealthy workplace if people are
afraid to name what's real. Ifyou're committed to ethical

(25:58):
leadership, stop askingemployees to interpret mixed
messages.
Say what you mean. Be honestabout hard decisions. And most
importantly, invite feedbackwithout retaliation. Control is
not the same as competence.People don't need you to be
perfect.
They need you to be real. Createstructures that support honest

(26:22):
communication. Regular checkins, anonymous feedback systems,
and clear escalation processescan help prevent gaslighting
behaviors from taking root. Whenemployees know their concerns
will be heard and addressed,they're less likely to
internalize doubt about theirperceptions. And remember from a
previous episode, this has apositive effect on your bottom

(26:46):
line.
Addressing workplace gaslightingisn't just about individual
well-being. It's aboutorganizational effectiveness.
Teams that feel safe to surfaceproblems and challenge
assumptions are more innovative,more resilient, and more
successful over time.Gaslighting isn't just something

(27:07):
that happens in abusiverelationships or on reality TV.
It's happening in the boardroom,HR meetings, and in performance
reviews and public statements.
And increasingly, it's happeningin the institutions we were told

to trust (27:21):
schools, hospitals, labs, the halls of government.
But recognizing this is thefirst step towards breaking its
spell. When we understand thatconfusion, self doubt, and
emotional invalidation can betools of institutional control,
we can begin to resist them.When we document our experiences

(27:42):
and connect with others, wecreate accountability that
gaslighting depends on avoiding.The research is clear:
Workplaces that engage ingaslighting behaviors ultimately
harm themselves.
They lose talent, reduceinnovation, and create cultures
of fear that stifle the verycreativity and engagement they
claim to value. This hurts theirbottom line. The short term

(28:07):
control that gaslightingprovides comes at the cost of
their long term sustainability.Thanks for listening to
PsyberSpace. I'm your host,Leslie Poston, signing off and
reminding you to stay curiousand don't let anyone rewrite
your reality.
Don't forget to subscribe so younever miss an episode, and share
it with a friend in case youthink they'd enjoy it as well.
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Stuff You Should Know
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark

My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.

The Joe Rogan Experience

The Joe Rogan Experience

The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.

Connect

© 2025 iHeartMedia, Inc.