The paper behind the familiar numbers
Hall’s paper, “How many hours does it take to make a friend?”, first appeared online in 2018 and was published in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, volume 36, issue 4, in 2019. It studied 355 adults who had recently relocated and followed 112 first-year students over nine weeks.
The University of Kansas summary describes estimates of about 50 total hours to move toward casual friendship, about 90 toward friendship, and more than 200 toward close friendship. Those are approximate totals, not 50 hours plus another 90 plus another 200. They describe patterns in the studies, not universal milestones.
Being in the same room is not the whole story
Hall’s findings connect shared leisure time and some everyday conversation with greater closeness. Simply accumulating hours around someone at work does not mean the relationship will develop in the same way. The kind of contact matters alongside the amount.
Our practical reading is to make room for interaction people actually choose: a walk after a class, a shared meal, or another round of a game. These examples are suggestions, not activities tested or prescribed by the paper. A comfortable plan gives conversation somewhere to happen without requiring instant intimacy.
What the numbers cannot tell you
The studies rely on people’s reports of their time and relationships. They are observational, so an association between hours and closeness does not establish that adding hours alone causes friendship. The groups studied also cannot represent every age, culture, situation or kind of relationship.
Closeness does not follow an identical schedule for everyone. Do not use an estimated threshold to pressure yourself or another person, or assume you are owed a friendship because you spent time together. Mutual interest, how you treat one another, and whether you want to return remain important parts of your own decision.
Put the next meeting in reach
Try choosing one activity you can repeat without stretching your budget or schedule. A smaller plan you can keep is often a better personal experiment than an ambitious social overhaul. After the first visit, decide whether you liked the setting enough to return, even if you only learned one name.
If you enjoyed talking to someone, offer a concrete follow-up rather than a vague promise to stay in touch. Leave room for them to decline. Over time, notice whether the effort is mutual and whether being together becomes more comfortable. You are building a relationship, not logging a training target.
Why we care about this at Whiff
Whiff is being built around repeated contact: the same four people, six planned activities, twelve weeks. Hall’s research is context for that design choice; it is not a study of Whiff, an endorsement, or proof that our approach works.
Six outings do not imply 200 hours together and do not guarantee close friends. The aim is to make the next meeting easier to arrange, leaving the friendship itself to the people. Our first circles are forming in Minneapolis–Saint Paul, and the store links are coming soon.
FOUR PEOPLE. A REASON TO RETURN.
Meet Whiff.
Platonic friendship through shared activities. First circles forming in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. App-store links are coming soon.