Arthur Aron and the 36 questions that build closeness
The "36 questions to fall in love" come from a 1997 psychology study led by Arthur Aron. In it, pairs of strangers took turns answering questions that got more personal over about 45 minutes, and afterward they reported feeling closer than pairs who made small talk. The study measured a temporary feeling of closeness between strangers in a lab. It didn't show that anyone fell in love.
Who Arthur Aron is
Aron, born in 1945, is a social psychologist at Stony Brook University in New York. According to Wikipedia, he has a PhD from the University of Toronto (1970) and has spent his career studying how friendships and intimacy form. He developed the self-expansion model, which proposes that one reason people form close relationships is that it expands their sense of self. His wife, Elaine Aron, the author of The Highly Sensitive Person, is a co-author of the 1997 paper.
The 1997 study
The paper is "The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness: A Procedure and Some Preliminary Findings," by Arthur Aron, Edward Melinat, Elaine Aron, Robert Vallone and Renee Bator, in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (volume 23, issue 4, pages 363 to 377).
According to its abstract, which is the part of the paper this post draws on:
- The procedure. Pairs did self-disclosure and relationship-building tasks that escalated in intensity over a 45-minute period.
- Study 1. Pairs who did these tasks reported more closeness afterward than pairs who did small-talk tasks instead.
- Studies 2 and 3. Three things made no significant difference to closeness: pairing people who didn't disagree on important attitudes, leading them to expect mutual liking, and telling them that getting close was the goal. The authors say the studies had adequate power.
- Preliminary findings. The abstract also mentions tentative results about attachment style and about introversion and extraversion.
The abstract doesn't give sample sizes, and the full text wasn't available to read. Greater Good notes that the original study included no demographic information, so treat it as a lab procedure tested on the people who took part, not as a statement about everyone.
What the questions look like
The popular list has 36 questions in three sets of 12, each set more personal than the last. In the usual description (for example, UC Berkeley's Greater Good in Action):
- Set I is light and get-acquainted. Examples are who you'd invite to dinner and what a perfect day looks like.
- Set II is more personal: values, memories, friendship, love and family.
- Set III is the most probing: embarrassing moments, what you appreciate about each other, and a personal problem you'd ask for advice on.
The guidance is to split the session into thirds, take turns answering each question, and alternate who goes first so the sharing stays balanced. Greater Good puts the full session at 45 minutes. This post doesn't reproduce the full list. It's easy to find from the sources below.
How it became famous
In January 2015, New York Times writer Mandy Len Catron published an essay titled "To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do This," tying the questions to love and to her own experience. The popular version differs from the study in what it claims. Viren Swami, summarizing the research for Anglia Ruskin University, says Aron and colleagues cautioned that the procedure doesn't create feelings of loyalty, dependence or commitment between strangers, and that it doesn't produce respect or passion either.
What came after
Researchers have used the procedure, often called the "Fast Friends" procedure, in many settings. According to Swami's summary and the Greater Good page, later studies used it with university students, mixed-group pairs (with some studies looking at prejudice), and an adapted version for children and parents. One lab's description of its expanded version has three sessions over about two weeks: two sessions of three 12-question sets, then a cooperative game, adapted from the 1997 procedure. Greater Good lists no sample sizes for these studies, and says people with low social motivation may benefit less. It also says taking turns appears to matter: one study it cites found that turn-taking increased liking and closeness.
Using it with someone you're getting to know
The study was a lab exercise between two people who had signed up for it. Everything below is advice for using the idea outside the lab, not a research finding.
- Ask first. "Want to try a game where we ask each other questions?" is enough. If they say no or seem unsure, drop it.
- Either person can skip any question. Say so at the start. "Pass on that one" should always be fine.
- Match the setting. A quiet cafe or a walk works better than a loud bar. It takes time, so it suits a second date or a friend more than a first conversation. First date questions has lighter options if 45 minutes is too much.
- Go in order, and stop when it's enough. Starting with Set I's tone and working up is the point. If someone's answers get shorter, slow down.
- Share as much as you ask. Matching your partner's level of disclosure keeps it from feeling like an interview. Deep conversation covers the same balance without a script.
- Don't treat closeness as a result. Feeling close after an hour tells you the exercise worked. It doesn't tell you whether you'd be good together over months.
If you're newer to open-ended conversation, how to keep a conversation going and conversation threading are shorter places to start.
What to take from Arthur Aron
- Escalate gradually. Start with low-stakes topics and let each answer set the next level.
- Take turns. Answer the question you ask, and alternate who goes first.
- Pick two questions from the sets (such as the dream dinner guest or a perfect day) and use them this week with a friend.
- Ask permission and offer a skip every time.
- Treat closeness and compatibility as separate. Note what you learned about the other person, not just how it felt.
- Try it on friends first before using it on a date, to see what pace feels right.
Sources
- Wikipedia, "Arthur Aron". Biography, the self-expansion model and the 2015 New York Times essay.
- Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone and Bator, "The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 23(4), 1997. Only the abstract was read (via a PDF copy's first page; the publisher's page returned an access error). Sample sizes are not given there. Citation details confirmed in Crossref.
- Greater Good in Action (UC Berkeley), "36 Questions for Increasing Closeness". The three sets, instructions and a summary of later studies. It reports no sample sizes.
- Viren Swami, "Can 36 questions really change your love life?" (Anglia Ruskin University). A secondary summary, used for the limits the authors noted and for later studies; it gives no sample sizes either.
- CBS News (January 14, 2015), on the experiment. Procedure as described for readers, with no figures.
- Rascl Lab, Fast Friends procedure page (UC Berkeley). A lab's expanded three-session version.