It Doesn't Hurt to Ask: Question-Asking Increases Liking
Huang, Yeomans, Brooks, Minson & Gino (2017) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3)
We use this paper in 16 places in the academy · 6 stated limits
What the study found
Two online chat studies with more than 600 people, and a speed-dating study with 110 people and about a thousand four-minute dates, found the same thing. People who asked more questions, especially follow-up questions, were liked more. Speed daters who asked more questions got more second dates.
Asking questions made people more liked in every study. The authors' explanation is that questions show you are listening and that you care.
Follow-up questions, not questions in general, were what made people more liked. They were also the most common kind of question people asked. So you do not need to learn a new move. You need to do this one on purpose.
Follow-up questions made people more liked by the person they were talking to. The effect was found in the person being asked, not in people who read the conversation later.
See 5 more ways we describe the same finding
Asking questions, and follow-up questions most of all, made people more liked in chat studies and in speed dating. The authors' explanation is that questions show you are listening and that you care.
In chat studies and a speed-dating study of 110 people, follow-up questions in particular made people more liked. Speed daters who asked more questions got more second dates.
Follow-up questions build on what the other person has just said. In the chat studies, they were the kind of question that made people more liked, and speed daters who asked more of them were offered more second dates.
In a speed-dating study of 110 people and about a thousand four-minute dates, people who asked more follow-up questions were offered more second dates. In the chat studies, follow-up questions were the kind of question that made people more liked.
In chat studies and a speed-dating study, people who asked more questions were liked more, and speed daters who asked more were offered more second dates.
What the study cannot prove
The studies were online chats and speed dates between people meeting for the first time. They did not test people who already know each other well.
Limits we note on the exercises
Tested in live conversation and speed dating, not in messaging apps.
The studies used strangers, not long-term partners.
The studies used live conversation, not messaging. The result points in a useful direction, but it is not proof.
The studies looked at follow-up questions within one conversation, between people meeting for the first time. Asking a follow-up question a week later is our own step.
The studies used live and chat conversations between people meeting for the first time, not a first text message. The idea that the same night is the right time is our own view.
The studies measured follow-up questions in general. Repeating the other person's last words is the shortest follow-up question we know, and using it this way is our own step.
Where we use it
We use this paper in 16 places in the academy. If the paper turned out to be wrong, we would have to change everything in this list. Some of the exercise instructions below are part of Gold. You can read every finding for free.
In the topics · 12
06 — Commit to the second sentence
Topic 01 · First Contact08 — One specific thing, one open question
Topic 02 · Conversation Craft01 — The second question
Topic 06 · The Long Devotion02 — One real follow-up
Topic 07 · The Carnegie Method03 — Arrive curious about one person
Topic 09 · The Casanova Method01 — Two follow-ups before you speak
Topic 11 · The Written Voice04 — Answer what they asked, then add one thing
Topic 12 · A Room of People03 — Join with a question
Topic 16 · The Regular03 — Keep one detail
Topic 17 · The First Date05 — Five follow-ups, counted
Topic 18 · The Unanswered Message01 — Send it that night
Topic 20 · When Your Mind Goes Blank05 — Repeat their last few words
In the videos · 3
On the courage ladder · 1
Other papers used in the same places
These papers are used in the same topics and videos as this one. That does not mean the papers agree with each other. It only means that the same exercises use both.
Beautiful Mess Effect: Self–Other Differences in Evaluation of Showing Vulnerability
Bruk, Scholl & Bless (2018)Duration Neglect in Retrospective Evaluations of Affective Episodes; When More Pain Is Preferred to Less
Fredrickson & Kahneman (1993); Kahneman, Fredrickson, Schreiber & Redelmeier (1993)The Liking Gap in Conversations: Do People Like Us More Than We Think?
Boothby, Cooney, Sandstrom & Clark (2018)A Cognitive Model of Social Phobia
Clark & Wells (1995)Overly Shallow?: Miscalibrated Expectations Create a Barrier to Deeper Conversation
Kardas, Kumar & Epley (2022)Mistakenly Seeking Solitude
Epley & Schroeder (2014)Research
A real study. We tell you what it found, how many people were in it, and what it can't prove.
You are free to read, link to and quote this page. If we claim more than this paper shows, please tell us at contact@suaviq.com. We read every correction, and corrections help us more than any other email.