A very messed-up theory as a variant of typical karma. The basic premise of karma is: "Don't do something bad, because later on something bad will happen to you." This, on the other hand, is quite different.

A scenario: a man running a company is under a great deal of pressure from his superiors to produce the product faster. He's just been yelled at. Obviously, he can't talk back to his supervisor since he'd get fired, so what does he do? He chews out his normally best worker over something small. Well, the target man doesn't want to be known as a guy who beats his wife, so instead he shouts at her when something wrong happens. Because of this marital strife, she screams at her kid all the time. The kid, having no weaker human to take it out on, beats the family dog, which then bites the nearby cat. And so on. The strong attacks the weak, who turns around and gives similar treatment to the weaker, who then harms the next weaker in turn. That's only "fair", right?

Inspired by a dynamic that's often Truth in Television, this theory has a number of assumptions:

1. There may or may not be an original source (in the latter case, it is because the source is oddly cyclic, or the superiors in question are just an excuse used by a Jerkass boss (see Bad Boss and Mean Boss), doing this For the Evulz (or it's the superiors who are the evil ones).
2. Things often worsen when the effect changes species (the boy beating the dog, when the others simply shouted at their target).
3. The chain either loops back to its original source (going on from the previous scenario, after the dog bites the cat, the cat scratches the CEO's superiors), or ends with a designated scapegoat, which is then summarily killed.
4. The scapegoat in question is often not human and an animal viewed as a pest. In the above example, this would probably continue on from the dog, to cat, ending with a rat being killed. It's worse if the animal has some productive use (such as rats clearing the street of insects) since their normal prey will now come along with a vengeance.^note (Provided there isn't another predator, like a frog.)
5. If it doesn't end with the original cycle, this harm will continue until it degrades the quality of the world, or until it reaches the original abuser, who will then receive their punishment.
6. Occasionally the cycle can end with no one being killed and with the original abuser getting away with it, but in these cases, there are usually no pets involved, and it's done to demonstrate the cycle-breaking character's virtue and/or to make them more sympathetic (for instance, instead of beating the dog, the boy goes to his room and cries). In these situations, the character who breaks the cycle is generally the protagonist. If the protagonist doesn't break the cycle (for instance, the boy is the main character but he does beat the dog), expect them to feel guilty afterwards.

The act of abusing someone weaker or lower-ranking than you to displace frustrations because of similar treatment from someone stronger or higher-ranking than you is often known as Kicking the Dog, but that term has a different meaning on this wiki.

Contrast to Cycle of Revenge, which directly targets the person causing harm. Compare to Revenge by Proxy, Delegation Relay, and Troubled Abuser. Breaking the Cycle of Bad Parenting is an effort to avert or defy this. If you were looking for examples of people using chains to harm others, see Chain Pain.

See also Create Your Own Villain, when one or more of the victims goes bad and hurts others as a natural consequence.

See Freudian Excuse when this is used in a villain's backstory as an explanation for their behavior now. Sometimes played as An Aesop (e.g. "Don't be mean to someone because someone was mean to you, or it will go on forever").

Examples: