In this research there are five setting: the neighborhood, the schools, work places, voluntary associations, and family networks. These settings are compared to each other as well as to the situation where no organized setting is shared. Couples who meet outside organized settings may either meet by coincidence, or may find a partner through bars, private parties, or their own network. The main difference between the "setting " and "no setting" condition lies in the distinction between preference and constraint. When people meet in organized settings, preferences and opportunities are both operating in the same direction. When people meet outside organized settings, in contrast, the selection process is largely shaped by preferences. People have preferences for socially or culturally similar spouses and these preferences either directly lead to homogamy, or they lead to the selection of smaller pools from which a spouse is chosen, such as bars or networks. Although these pools may be homogeneous, they are chosen rather than given and therefore less homogeneous than the organized settings we consider. .
In this article, researchers have been trying to generalize research on networks and d friends by applying the logic micro level interaction opportunities to the choice of a marriage partner. The next step would be to combine the two lines of research in one inquiry, using the same sample and similar measurements. By doing this, researchers can test hypotheses about differences between intimate and less intimate interaction partners. One possible hypothesis is that less intimate ties are more sanative to the influence of organized settings than more intimate ties. .
According to the results of this article, the schools promote most forms of homogamy, while work places only promote religious homogamy, but they are not related to homogamy with respect to class destinations.