Using survey data from 1,300 welfare recipients in the Netherlands, this paper explores the effects of different enforcement styles in the field of social security law. Although most policy debates focus on punitive and persuasive enforcement, our findings suggest that both styles only play a limited role in explaining regulatory compliance. Our study also shows that the level of compliance among welfare recipients is related to their ‘motivational postures’ (Braithwaite 2003; 2009; 2011). While some of these ‘postures’ are shaped by elements of procedural justice, others are related to the perceived legitimacy of laws or to instrumental motives. Given these findings, we suggest that compliance with social security laws may not only depend on punitive or persuasive enforcement, but also on the degree in which regulatory enforcement is attuned to the individual characteristics of welfare recipients. Finally, these ideas are translated into several practical suggestions for the ‘smart enforcement’ of social security law.