Introduction to the BAT Special Issue on Bridge Studies

A unique aspect of behavior analysis as a discipline is the direct link between elements that are basic (operant mechanisms that underlie a response) and those that are applied (applications of those mechanisms to socially relevant behavior) (Wacker, 2000). This direct link provides opportunities for an almost seamless translation of knowledge gained in basic operant laboratories to significant social problems encountered in the community. For example, Kazdin (1978) noted a direct link in the 1960s between research conducted in laboratory settings and research conducted in behavior therapy. As studies were disseminated from operant laboratories, approaches to behavior therapy changed and, in a reciprocal fashion, studies in behavior therapy influenced studies conducted in operant labs. More recently, however, Vollmer and Hackenberg (2001) have noted that the "bridges" built in behavior analytic research are largely unidirectional. Specifically, what is learned in the nonhuman laboratory frequently informs behavior analytic practice. However, save a few exceptions, what occurs in practice infrequently directs nonhuman laboratory research. This state of affairs, as it seems to be, need not remain. Hake (1982) described studies that promoted reciprocal interactions between basic and applied behavior analysis as constituting bridge studies. Bridge studies provide analyses that increase our understanding of both operant mechanisms and socially meaningful behavior and thus provide the necessary links for viewing behavior analysis on a continuum rather than as separate categories of basic and applied research. The categorization of operant research as either basic or applied is often helpful because it permits consumers to determine which books, journals, and presentations may be of most interest to them. However, such categorization can also lead to the absence of the reciprocal relationship described by Kazdin (1978) and Vollmer and Hackenberg (2001). One outcome of this lack of reciprocity is that as practitioners, we may encounter problem behaviors that are resistant to change or treatment programs, and we have difficulty determining why the behavior is persisting or how to make fundamental changes to enhance the treatment's effectiveness. As applied researchers, we sometimes struggle with how to conduct additional studies to better understand the relation between the target behaviors of interest and the components within the treatment programs being conducted (Borrero, Vollmer, Samaha, Sloman, & Francisco, 2007). A disconnect between basic and applied behavior analysis leads toward descriptions of observed outcomes and away from analyses of why the outcomes occurred. It also leads to definitions of what constitutes a desirable treatment based on the structural components that comprise the treatment and away from functional analyses of the conditions under which any given treatment might be most effective. As an example, the phenomenon of maintenance is of critical importance to all applied programs, but even a cursory review of the applied literature will show only a few applied studies of maintenance, and even fewer studies that have attempted to analyze the conditions under which maintenance is most likely to occur or how it can be produced. Studies such as those in this special issue that focus on behavioral persistence (Dube, Ahearn, Lionello-DeNolf, & McIlvane), resurgence (Lattal & St. Peter-Pipken), and reinforcement contingencies (Vollmer, Samaha, & Sloman) offer analyses that have a direct and functional relationship with maintenance. We also have considerable evidence to suggest that a reinforcing stimulus may be considered a reinforcer only within specific boundaries (e.g., Meehl, 1950). An informed and evolving body of work that was spawned from traditional economic formulations of behavior offers a conceptual system that is consistent with the analysis of behavior and may inform application. …