Study 1 investigated how persons link together sequential causes to explain everyday events. One hundred fifty-four undergraduates were asked to explain the cause(s) of positive or negative outcomes in three domains (achievement, accidental, and interpersonal). Perceivers used two or more causes linked in a temporal chain more often than a single, proximal cause to explain outcomes. Accidents and events with positive outcomes produced the fewest and shortest chains. However, positive accidents produced longer chains than negative accidents. More explanations were terminated at a dispositional than at a situational node. Although judgments of outcome foreseeability were lowest for accidents and for positive rather than negative outcomes, negative accidents were judged the most foreseeable. In Study 2, 68 undergraduates rated the foreseeability of 10 different outcomes in each of the three previous domains. Results indicated that patterns of complex causality depend on the perceived foreseeability of an outcome, rather than its valence.