I can't speak to sociologists, but here's a summary of how economists and political scientists get along:

Politics is a big intellectual tent, and they don’t always get along. Now, the methodological and ideological divide that separated the quantitative from the qualitative folks, and the rationalist people from everyone else, is closing. When you look at senior scholars in the top departments, most them do one well but dabble in the other. The younger generation of scholars are also mostly comfortable in both areas, and even if they specialize, there’s an openness and a collegiality that (I think) is new. People get along. But that doesn’t mean they easily agree on the best new hire.

A [polsci's] caricature of economists: they only respect papers, they tend to like small questions answered ridiculously precisely, and they use a narrow set of mathematical tools for the job or simply don’t bother with the question.

The [econ's] caricature of political scientists: they write books that often would have been better off as papers, they think small and precise questions are useful but rather boring, and they’ll use whatever tools they need to tackle the big questions that matter.

from Chris Blattman, an economist-turned-political-scientist

I assume the same sort of comments would apply to sociology.

Economists are not happy until they've refined their question of interest until it can be expressed as a function of regression coefficients. Then they'll do whatever econometric wizardry is necessary to get good estimates of those coefficients.

Sociologists (I suppose) care more about the big picture, are more comfortable with messy, complex interrelationships, and aren't as worried about identification getting in the way of a good research question.