The effects of response effort on safe performance by therapists at an autism treatment facility.

Smith et al. (2010) watched therapists in an autism clinic. They wanted to see if making safety tasks easier would make staff do them more.

The team picked three jobs: using hand gel, locking med carts, and checking seat belts. They moved gel dispensers closer or added extra locks so the same job took more or less effort.

Each therapist’s safe moves were counted across shifts. When effort dropped, staff hit 100% compliance. When effort rose, slips came back.

Low effort won every time. Hand-gel use stayed perfect when dispensers sat on every door frame. Move the dispenser down the hall and use fell.

The same swing showed up with seat-belt checks and med-cart locks. If the safe way is the easy way, people stick with it.

Grace (1995) already told us that bigger effort shrinks any behavior. Smith et al. (2010) simply proved the flip side: cut the effort and the good behavior grows.

Chandler et al. (1992) saw the same pattern with pigeons. Birds kept pecking when the peck got easier. People or pigeons, low effort pulls responses.

Han et al. (2025) looked at kids, not staff, but they still fit under the ABA service roof. Their 2025 meta-analysis shows dosage matters for child progress; E et al. shows setup matters for staff progress. Both papers say the same thing: tweak the context, not just the training.

You can run all the safety trainings you want, but if the sink is down the hall the gel won’t get used. Put a pump on every doorpost, lock carts with one click, and watch compliance climb without extra lectures. Next time you spot a staff shortcut, ask, "Can I make the right move the easy move?"