Can two people speed up closeness with a set of prompts and a timer? The viral list known as the 36 questions to fall in love claims exactly that, compressing weeks of small talk into about 45 minutes of shared vulnerability and attention.
Created in 1997 by psychologist Arthur Aron and colleagues for a study published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, the protocol uses three escalating sets of 12 prompts to generate interpersonal closeness. The idea resurfaced in 2015, when Mandy Len Catron’s New York Times essay brought it to millions and described ending with four minutes of quiet eye contact. The promise is not magic. It is structure that nudges two minds to meet.
What the 36 Questions Actually Do
The method begins light and grows deeper. Early prompts invite low‑stakes sharing about hopes and everyday choices. Later prompts ask for memories, values, fears and the kind of life someone wants. That arc matters because research consistently links reciprocal self‑disclosure with increased liking and trust. Arthur Aron’s 1997 paper tested this idea by comparing the question sets with small talk in controlled lab conditions, then measuring closeness right after the exercise.
Catron’s 2015 piece did not claim a guaranteed outcome. It reported a modern, real‑world use: two acquaintances completed the three sets and then sustained eye contact for four minutes. The result was a strong sense of connection. The message that stuck for readers was simple: attention plus vulnerability can accelerate bonding when two people opt in.
There is also a timing component. In the lab, pairs moved through the sets within one session that typically ran around 45 minutes. That container keeps momentum. It also keeps both people sharing at similar depth, not one person oversharing while the other stays on the surface.
The Science Behind Closeness: From 1997 to Now
Aron’s team designed the questions to produce a gradual, reciprocal exchange. The 1997 article describes increases in reported closeness compared with a small‑talk control, supporting earlier evidence that self‑disclosure boosts liking. The structure matters as much as the content: each partner answers, then listens. That symmetry reduces pressure and keeps safety high.
Why do many couples report feeling more connected after trying it at home or on a date? Beyond the prompts themselves, the process temporarily removes distractions and nudges active listening. Relationship research from The Gottman Institute found that couples who stayed together turned toward each other’s bids for attention about 86 percent of the time, while couples who later divorced did so around 33 percent of the time. The 36 questions create dozens of small bids in a row, then ask both people to turn toward.
Context changed though the core stayed. In 2015, the format jumped from lab rooms to living rooms, aided by smartphones and a cultural appetite for structured conversation. The principle is still the same: guided intimacy, shared evenly, at a pace that feels safe.
How to Use the 36 Questions Today
Set the scene with intention. A quiet table, phones silenced, water nearby. Decide together to take turns and keep answers honest but not performative. Skipping a prompt is allowed if either person prefers it.
Move through the three sets in order. Read each prompt aloud, both answer, then swap to the next. Keep the total window to about 45 to 60 minutes. If using the eye‑contact finish described in The New York Times essay, agree to it first and try four minutes of comfortable, relaxed gaze.
For a smoother run, this quick checklist helps.
- Agree on consent and boundaries before starting and during the session.
- Alternate answers to keep balance and pace.
- Listen without interrupting, then reflect back one detail you heard.
- Pause for a minute between sets to breathe and reset.
- Stop if either person feels flooded and pick up another day.
One more practical note: use the full list. The early questions warm up the conversation and make the deeper set feel natural rather than abrupt.
Common Mistakes and the Missing Ingredient
Many people rush. Speed turns the exercise into a quiz and reduces the very safety that makes openness possible. Others treat it like a trick to manufacture romance. That often backfires, because the protocol builds closeness, not automatic attraction.
Another pitfall is unequal vulnerability. If one partner stays vague while the other shares openly, trust drops. Keeping answers concrete helps: talk in specifics, not generalities. For example, instead of saying someone values family, name the weekly ritual that proves it.
So what fills the gap between a meaningful session and a durable bond? Repetition and daily micro‑behaviors. The questions can spark a strong first bridge. Relationship maintenance keeps it standing. Small follow ups do the heavy lifting: a text recalling one detail from Set II, a short walk to debrief the experience, a plan for the next shared activity. The research arc from 1997 to today suggests a straightforward takeaway: structured self‑disclosure raises closeness, and turning toward bids keeps it there. If both people are willing, the 36 questions are definetely a clear place to start.