Six experiments examined the effects of signaling the termination of inescapable shock (cessation conditioning) or shock-free periods (backward conditioning) on later escape deficits in the learned helplessness paradigm, using rats (Sprague-Dawley and Bantin-Kingman). A cessation signal prevented later performance deficits when highly variable inescapable shock durations were used during pretreatment. The inclusion of short minimum intertrial intervals during pretreatment did not alter the benefits of cessation conditioning but eliminated the protection afforded by a safety signal. The beneficial effects of both cessation and backward signals were eliminated when a single stimulus signaled shock termination and a shock-free period. Finally, a combination of cessation and backward signals was found to be most effective in immunizing against the effects of subsequent unsignaled, inescapable shock on later escape performance. These data suggest that cessation conditioning may be crucial to the prophylactic action of an escape response.