Using a unique survey of more than 7,000 respondents conducted immediately after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Italy, we investigate potential drivers of the job satisfaction of healthcare workers. Relying on a representative sample of Italian physicians and nurses, we show that, in addition to personal characteristics (e.g., age, gender, health status), contextual factors (i.e., working conditions) play the leading role in explaining variation in the level of satisfaction (58%). In particular, working in a high-quality facility increases worker satisfaction and willingness to remain in the profession, and in the current medical specialization, while working in a province with a perceived shortage of medical personnel yields the opposite result. Direct experience with COVID-19 (e.g., having tested positive) is not significantly correlated with the level of job satisfaction, which is instead significantly reduced by changes in the working conditions caused by the health emergency.

The existence of a strong link between socio-economic background and individual preferences has been documented among both children and grown-ups. Here, we study whether such a correlation persists even in a highly homogeneous population of young adults: university students. Our findings indicate that participants living in an area characterized by a high socio-economic environment tend to trust more and are more inclined to reciprocate higher levels of trust, as compared to those coming from less wealthy neighborhoods. This behavioral difference is, at least in part, driven by heterogeneities in beliefs: subjects from the most affluent part of the city have more optimistic expectations on their counterpart’s trustworthiness than those living in a lower socio-economic environment. By contrast, no significant differences emerge in other preferences: generosity, risk attitudes, and time preferences. Finally, we do not find any systematic evidence of out-group discrimination based on neighborhood identity.

This paper exploits discontinuities in the assigment of scholarships targeted at low income students in an Italian University in order to evaluate the effects of monetary incentives on students' academic achievement. Results reveal positive and sizeable causal effects both in terms of credits and grades. Gender differentials also emerge: male students drive the results on credits outcome while females students drive the effect on grades. These results suggest that the scholarship design contributes to reducing the probability of delayed graduation ("Fuori Corso" problem).

We study how differences in socioeconomic background correlate with preferences and beliefs, in a sample of college students born in a mid-sized Italian city. Our findings indicate that participants living in an area characterized by a high socioeconomic environment tend to trust more and are more inclined to reciprocate higher levels of trust, as compared to those coming from less wealthy neighborhoods. This behavioral difference is, at least in part, driven by heterogeneities in beliefs: subjects from the most affluent part of the city have more optimistic expectations on their counterpart's trustworthiness than those living in a lower socioeconomic environment. By contrast, no significant differences emerge in other preferences: generosity, risk-attitudes, and time preferences. Finally, we do not find any systematic evidence of out-group discrimination based on neighborhood identity.

The present research investigates individual decision making regarding jobs scheduling, by means of a laboratory experiment based on the "Admission Test" of the University of Bologna, in which students have to allocate effort among several tasks in a limited timespan. The experiment includes three treatments that differ in the way the test is administered to participants: either with a fixed sequence of questions, or with a fixed time per task, or with no constraints. Results show large and significant heterogeneity in treatment effects. Constraints on the answering sequence or on the time allocation for each task improved the performance of those subjects who failed to efficiently allocate their effort among the tasks, whereas negative effects were found for students who were already good in self-organizing. The study has relevant policy implications for the organization of the workload in the labor force, when different types of workers are employed. Furthermore, important intuitions on the design of the university student-selection mechanisms are also discussed.