Determining what caused an event is common in everyday life, yet little is known about what aspects of real-world events affect causal attribution. Causes may unfold at multiple timescales, with gradual events (e.g., steady weight loss) and abrupt ones (e.g., acute illness) contributing to an outcome. We investigated causal attribution in real-world contexts (e.g., finance, health) where both types of events contribute to a positive or negative outcome. In Study 1, participants gave higher causal ratings to abrupt causes in negative scenarios about the environment or finance. Conversely, we found higher causal ratings for gradual causes of physical health regardless of outcome valence, and no significant differences in mental health scenarios. Further, participants' counterfactual responses were mostly consistent with their causal attributions. Study 2 suggests that the preference for abrupt causes may be explained by their temporal proximity to the outcome. We discuss explanations for these findings and their implications.