The 36 Questions, Rewritten for Friendship

The famous 36 questions come from a 1997 psychology experiment that generated closeness between strangers in a laboratory. The procedure was not a test of love, and it was never limited to romantic pairs. It can be used with friends and acquaintances. Below is what the study actually tested, a friendship-specific set of 36 questions, and a link to a faithful version of the original.

What the 36 questions actually are

The source is a paper by Arthur Aron and colleagues, published in 1997 in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin under the title The Experimental Generation of Interpersonal Closeness. It describes a procedure, not a relationship recipe. Pairs of strangers worked through 36 questions in three sets of twelve across roughly 45 minutes, about 15 minutes per set, with each set more probing than the one before. The measured outcome was reported closeness immediately afterwards.

Three details get lost in almost every version circulating online:

• The paper is not called "the questions that lead to love". The romance framing came from later popular coverage, not the study's outcome. The paper measured reported closeness immediately after the exercise.
• The progression is part of the method. Participants worked through three increasingly personal sets over 45 minutes. A random collection of 36 prompts is not the same procedure.
• Closeness measured minutes later is not friendship.Study 1 found greater post-conversation closeness for the escalating tasks than for comparable small-talk tasks. That does not establish whether two people will still be talking in six months.

The useful part is the structure: both people participate, and the questions become more personal gradually. The paper calls its findings preliminary, so this guide keeps the result inside that boundary.

What changes when you use it for friendship

You can use the original questions with a friend. A friendship-specific set is an alternative, not a correction. It can help when you want the escalating structure without the cultural expectation that you are trying to fall in love.

• Name the purpose. Agree that the goal is a more thoughtful conversation, not a test of whether the friendship is close enough.
• Adapt the pace, not the evidence. The experiment used one synchronous 45-minute session. Friends can take one set at a time or use the questions over text, but those are practical adaptations, not conditions tested in the original paper.
• Make declining ordinary. Later questions ask about grief, embarrassment and personal problems. Either person should be able to pass without explaining why.
• Keep the exchange reciprocal. In the study, participants took turns answering. One person should not become the interviewer while the other takes every personal risk.

36 questions for friendship, in three sets

These are not the original questions and should not be presented as them. They are a ValuePair-authored friendship set built on the same broad progression from easy disclosure to more personal reflection. It includes a stated commonality, a complete-the-sentence prompt and a request for advice on something real.

If you would rather use the original, the Greater Good in Action version is free and faithful to the paper.

Set 1: easy ground

Low cost, still revealing. Nobody has to be brave yet, and the point of this set is to establish that you will both actually answer.

1. A free weekend with nothing you have to do. What actually gives you energy back?
2. What is something small that reliably improves your day?
3. When are you genuinely at your best?
4. What did you want to be when you were ten, and what happened to that?
5. What is your usual role in a group of friends?
6. Be honest: what actually makes you laugh?
7. What is something you enjoy that you would never put on a profile?
8. What does a normal evening at your place look like?
9. How do you like to make plans, and how far ahead?
10. What is the last thing you got genuinely absorbed in?
11. Name three things you think we already have in common.
12. What do your favourite conversations tend to run on?

Set 2: how you actually live

This is where day-to-day differences become visible. Not interests, but how somebody handles time, attention, conflict and other people.

13. A friend comes to you with a problem. Do you solve it, listen, lighten it, or say the uncomfortable thing?
14. Underneath everything, what is a real friendship mostly about?
15. What gives your life meaning, most of the time?
16. How much of your free time do you actually want to share with somebody close?
17. Who usually starts things between you and the people you are close to?
18. When your head and your heart disagree, which one usually wins?
19. What is something you have changed your mind about in the last few years?
20. Tell me about a time somebody showed up for you when they did not have to.
21. What are you working on in yourself right now, if anything?
22. When the world around you changes fast, what is your first honest reaction?
23. What are you good at that people rarely notice?
24. Complete this sentence: what I want more of in my life is.

Set 3: the part that costs something

Only worth reaching once sets 1 and 2 went well. If either of you has been giving one-line answers, stop here rather than pushing.

25. What would damage a friendship beyond repair for you?
26. What is your secret fear in friendships?
27. When you are really struggling, what do you actually do?
28. What do you need from people that you find hard to ask for?
29. Tell me about the last time you felt genuinely known by somebody.
30. What is something you are still a little embarrassed about?
31. When did you last cry, and what was it about?
32. Is there anything you treat as too serious to joke about?
33. What would somebody have to understand about you to actually get you?
34. Tell me one thing you have noticed and appreciated about me so far.
35. Describe a problem you are actually dealing with, and ask me what I would do.
36. If we stopped talking after today, what would you want me to remember about you?

Reciprocity carries all 36

In the original procedure, participants took turns and both answered each question. That reciprocity is different from one person reading a list while the other supplies every answer. For a flexible set selected by the stage of a new friendship, use our guide to deep questions to ask a new friend.

ValuePair uses a separate mechanic: both people answer independently, and neither answer is revealed until both have committed. The 1997 study did not test ValuePair's hidden answer-then-reveal design. We use it to keep the exchange mutual, not because the paper validated it.

What the study can and cannot tell you

Study 1 compared escalating relationship-building tasks with comparable small-talk tasks and found greater closeness immediately afterwards. Studies 2 and 3 tested other parts of the setup and did not find that matching people on important attitudes, creating an expectation of mutual liking, or explicitly making closeness the goal added a closeness effect.

That supports a narrow conclusion: under the study conditions, the escalating tasks generated more immediate reported closeness than the small-talk comparison. It does not establish a durable friendship, predict whether two people suit each other, or show that every way of adapting the questions will have the same result.

Use the questions as a conversation structure, not as a relationship outcome or a score.

How to actually run this

1. Do not attempt 45 minutes cold. The original had a researcher, a room and a timetable. You have neither. One set per sitting is plenty.
2. Agree on reciprocity and the right to pass. Both people answer, take turns starting, and let either person skip a question without explanation.
3. Keep answers to a few sentences, and add the reason. The reason behind an answer is what the other person actually learns from.
4. Stop where the energy stops. Finishing set 2 well beats limping through set 3. The list is not a test you pass.
5. Follow the differences. Where you match you have common ground. Where you differ you have the only genuinely interesting question available: why do you see it that way?

Mistakes that kill it

• Presenting an adaptation as the original. If you use the set on this page, say that it is friendship-specific. Link to the faithful original when that is what somebody wants.
• Asking without answering. It turns a reciprocal exercise into an interview and leaves one person carrying all the disclosure.
• Treating it as a compatibility test. These are not a scoring instrument. A difference is a topic, not a verdict.
• Expecting the effect to be the relationship. Feeling close after a long honest conversation is real, and it is a beginning rather than a result.

If you want the structure without arranging it

Running this with somebody you already know works well. The harder case is not having that person yet.

ValuePair introduces one person at a time based on the values and priorities both people chose, keeps photos out of the matching decision, and runs a hidden answer-then-reveal sequence across 14 questions. It is a free, open beta with no ads and no payments. You can create a profile and join the matching pool, or read how the format works in our guide to a friendship app without swiping.

Common questions

Do the 36 questions actually work?

In Study 1, strangers who completed the escalating tasks reported more closeness immediately afterwards than pairs who completed comparable small-talk tasks. That is not a finding about lasting friendship, and the paper describes its findings as preliminary.

Do we have to do all 36?

No. The escalation matters, the total does not. Twelve questions answered properly by both people beat 36 answered by one.

Can I use the original list instead?

Yes, and the Greater Good in Action version is faithful and free. It explicitly presents the exercise for friends, acquaintances, family members and co-workers as well as couples.

Does this work over text?

Yes, and written answers are often more considered because nobody is filling a silence. The cost is pace, so you need patience and a way to keep both people moving. Our FAQ explains how ValuePair paces it.

Is this for dating or for friendship?

The set above is written for friendship. Sets 1 and 2 transfer to dating with no changes. ValuePair itself is friendship-first, with dating optional and only where both people's stated intentions overlap.

Sources and editorial note

ValuePair publishes this guide and is the product described near the end of it. The 36 questions on this page are our friendship-specific set, not the paper's original appendix.

The original procedure is Aron, Melinat, Aron, Vallone and Bator, 1997, which measured closeness generated between strangers in a controlled setting. The Greater Good in Action practice provides a faithful public version of the original questions and describes friendship uses. We make no claim that any question sequence predicts friendship or relationship outcomes.