At Columbia University, researchers conducted a simple but brilliant experiment. They wanted to see how much effort a rat would endure if the reward (a piece of cheese) was tempting enough.
The setup?
A contraption we’ll call the Columbia Obstruction Device: an electrified cage, a rat, and a variable-sized piece of cheese.
The rat had two choices:
- Stay put and avoid the shock
- Brave the pain and claim the prize
What Happened
- Same shock, same cheese → The rat stays put.
- More shock, same cheese → Not a chance.
- More shock, bigger cheese → Okay, now we’re talking. The rat pushes through.
- Less shock, same cheese → The rat takes the win.
Increase the difficulty too much, and the rat gives up. Increase the reward enough, and the rat finds a way.
You get the idea.
The Human Parallel
Now, let’s swap out the rat for a human and the cheese for the conveniences of technology. The principle stays the same.
This is exactly what we deal with in design technology. The automation we build promises efficiency, but users won’t adopt it just because we say it’s great. Their willingness to use it depends on the effort required to get the reward.
And let’s be real: there’s never going to be enough cheese.
There will always be some manual input and some learning curve. People won’t magically switch just because the tool is available. If the perceived effort is too high compared to the payoff, they’ll stick to their old ways—no matter how inefficient.
The Balance of Effort and Reward
The key? Make your application compelling or reduce the effort required to use it.
Respect the balance. Users aren’t lazy—they just need the right incentive.
So before launching your next automation tool, ask yourself:
If you were the user, would you bother jumping the fence?
