Following extinction of the context of alcohol delivery, two cue‐induced reinstatement tests were implemented (Figure 5A) in order to examine (a) the effects of individual SDPS variability to alcohol relapse (saline test) and (b) the efficacy of guanfacine pretreatment in preventing SDPS‐induced heightened relapse (guanfacine test). The average number of active responses during the last three extinction sessions (EXT13‐15; one‐way ANOVA, F GROUP(2, 34) = 1.61, P = 0.215) was compared with responses gained during the two relapse tests.20 During the saline test, a significant relapse effect was detected following presentation of alcohol‐associated cues, in absence of relapse × group interaction, repeated measures ANOVA: F RELAPSE(1, 32) = 30.72, P < 0.001; F RELAPSE × GROUP(2, 32) = 1.26, P = 0.296, as all animals increased responding compared with their extinction performance, paired t test: controls, t(14) = −3.15; P = 0.007; SDPS prone, t(9) = −3.59; P = 0.006; and SDPS resilient, t(9) = −2.70; P = 0.024 (Figure 5C). Notably, a main group effect was observed, repeated measures ANOVA: F GROUP(1, 32) = 3.74, P = 0.035, which
