Fig. 2

Familiar male mice exhibit escape behavior in a novel socially induced avoidance paradigm. a Schematic of the socially induced avoidance paradigm, and schedule (Acc, acclimation; Cond, demonstrator conditioning). b On the second conditioning day (Cond (open)), familiar mice (black line, n = 10) but not non-conditioned controls (dashed line, n = 12) escaped the demonstrator-paired context during acclimation and conditioning. The gray box indicates acclimation period prior to demonstrator conditioning. Both familiar (black, n = 10) and unfamiliar (gray, n = 8) observer mice exhibited initial escape behavior during acclimation (familiar vs. control: two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.90, p = 0.011; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.021, p = 0.017; unfamiliar vs. control: t(19) = 2.32, p = 0.042; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.0004, p = 0.049), whereas only familiar mice maintained escape during demonstrator conditioning (familiar vs. control: two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 4.09, p = 0.001; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.093, p = 0.001; unfamiliar vs. control: t(19) = 0.14, p = 0.889; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.14, p = 0.981). c Compared to non-conditioned controls (white, n = 12), familiar observers (black, n = 10) exhibited significant escape behavior at post-test (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.73, p = 0.017; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.025, p = 0.012), whereas unfamiliar mice (gray, n = 8) did not (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(19) = 1.27, p = 0.229; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = −0.05, p = 0.488). d Familiar observer mice (black, n = 10) exhibited a significant difference in normalized avoidance scores compared to non-conditioned controls (white, n = 12) (two-tailed Student’s t-test: t(21) = 2.17, p = 0.052; Dunnett’s post hoc: LSD = 0.023, p = 0.029). Error bars represent s.e.m. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01