After the last FR session, we implemented PR training to study whether a similar increase in demand of reinforcement was evident after SDPS as observed previously20, 23 (Figure 3A). Analysis over the five PR sessions showed no effect of training for the number of active responses, repeated measures ANOVA: F PR(3.40, 108.84) = 2.07, P = 0.100 (Figure 3B). A significant group effect was observed, F GROUP(2, 32) = 3.42, P = 0.045, in absence of training × group interaction, F PR × GROUP(6.80, 108.84) = 0.72, P = 0.653. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the SDPS‐prone group showed a significantly higher number of responses for the alcohol reward vs controls (P = 0.016), consuming more alcohol (Table S5). No overall difference in responding between SDPS‐resilient and control animals (P = 0.128), nor between the two SDPS groups (P = 0.375), was detected. Accordingly, a significant group effect in break points over the five PR sessions was observed, repeated measures ANOVA F GROUP(2, 32) = 3.44, P = 0.044 (Figure 3C). Post hoc comparisons revealed that this effect was driven by
