Two chairs, a quiet room, 36 questions. That is the deceptively simple script behind the most famous intimacy experiment on the internet, designed by social psychologist Arthur Aron to accelerate closeness between strangers. The promise that intrigued millions since 2015 : a structured conversation that can make people feel surprisingly connected fast.
The method traces back to a 1997 paper in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Aron’s team built a three-part sequence of prompts that move from light to deeply personal, completed in about 45 minutes. The goal was not magic or manipulation, but a reliable way to create mutual vulnerability – and measure it. The questions later reached pop culture after Mandy Len Catron’s New York Times Modern Love essay in 2015 described trying them, paired with 4 minutes of eye contact.
What are Arthur Aron’s 36 questions to fall in love?
Think of it as a warm-up, a climb, then a gentle summit. The 36 prompts come in three sets of 12, each more intimate than the last. Set I helps two people find safe common ground. Set II invites memories and values. Set III opens doors to hopes, fears, and care.
They are asked aloud, alternating turns. Each person answers every question. Timers help keep the rhythm, and the conversation stays face to face. The structure supports reciprocity so neither person carries the emotional load alone.
The idea did not claim to manufacture romance on command. It set up conditions for closeness – self-disclosure, attentive listening, and equal exchange – that research has linked to stronger bonds since the 1970s. Attraction might follow, or not. Closeness often does.
The science behind the 36 questions : what the 1997 study found
Aron’s original research, published in 1997, tested whether guided self-disclosure could experimentally increase interpersonal closeness compared with small talk. Participants were paired as strangers and followed the sequence in a lab setting, then rated how close they felt. The closeness scores rose significantly within a single session, and the procedure became known as the “Fast Friends” paradigm in later studies.
The cultural boom came much later. In January 2015, the New York Times Modern Love essay by Mandy Len Catron spotlighted the 36 questions and the optional 4-minute eye contact finale. Interest exploded, from dating apps to therapists who adapted the protocol. The timeline matters : science built the tool in 1997, the internet turned it into a household experiment in 2015.
One often-cited anecdote from early lab work mentioned a pair who married months after meeting via the protocol. That story caught attention, but the paper’s core takeaway was consistent, measurable increases in felt closeness – not guaranteed romance or long-term outcomes.
How to use the 36 questions at home, date night or in counseling
People try the sequence on a first date, to reconnect after a rough patch, or as a gentle team icebreaker. The frame matters : aim for curiosity, not a test. Phones away, quiet space, equal time to speak.
Timing helps. The classic format runs about 45 minutes, then a short pause, then optional eye contact. Many couples stretch it over an evening or split the sets across two days. That can feel less intense and still effective.
Want a feel for the progression before diving in? These examples mirror the climb from light to deep:
- Set I : “Given the choice of anyone in the world, whom would you want as a dinner guest?”
- Set I : “What would constitute a perfect day for you?”
- Set II : “What is your most treasured memory?”
- Set II : “Is there something you’ve dreamed of doing for a long time? Why haven’t you done it?”
- Set III : “What, if anything, is too serious to be joked about?”
- Set III : “Share a personal problem and ask your partner’s advice on how they might handle it.”
Therapists sometimes adapt the sets for premarital sessions or to thaw communication. The structure can also support friendships, not just dating. Closeness is the outcome measured in the lab, and friendships benefit from that too.
Common mistakes and realistic expectations with the 36 questions
Pushing speed. The sets are designed to feel gradual. Rushing through, skipping pauses, or crowding silences can break the trust the method tries to build.
Treating it like a trick. The 36 questions are a scaffold for openness, not a hack. Using them to force confessions or to “win” a date backfires, because the effect depends on voluntary reciprocity.
Ignoring context. Alcohol, noisy bars, or group settings dilute attention. Privacy helps, as does a clear agreement: both will show up honestly for the next 45 minutes. That social contract is small but powerful.
Overpromising outcomes. The 1997 study showed strong increases in reported closeness in one sitting, and 2015 coverage spread the story worldwide. Love remains unpredictable. What the protocol reliably offers is a short path to feeling known, which can feed romance or simply create respect.
So a simple checklist tends to help the most : a quiet place, shared intent, equal time, and the three-set sequence. Add the optional 4-minute eye contact if both consent. The structure does the heavy lifting. The rest is human – hesitations, laughs, the odd tangent. That is not a bug, it is definetly the point.