In my early days as a budding sociologist I did a "controlled laboratory experiment" under the direction of a Stanford guy who loved this kinda stuff. I mention Stanford because while they do experimental approach to social behavior, they tend to stay away from the troglodyte rat choice approaches as the one described above. So the experiment was a real hypothesis testing that had an interesting cognitive twist. The subject of the experiment was the effect of different status cues on hiring decisions, particularly the evaluation of candidates' qualificactions. My exprimental subjects were, well you've probably quessed, undergrad students - poor souls slaving in a lab to get "research credits" required by the Psych department.
I was so thrilled by the whole thing, that I sent the results for a publication review to AJS, if memory serves. They flatly rejected my submission, citing the following opinion by an anon reviewer: "The papaer tells us how undergarduate students evaluate job applications. What does it have to do with hiring decisions? Having said that, all other aspects of the paper are irrelevant."
This was one of the shortest and up to the point reviews I've seen. I guess the "dismal science" has a lot to learn from sociology.
wojtek