Assessments in contests are frequently assumed to be complex when simple explanations will suffice

• We respond to a critique by Fawcett & Mowles of our recent essay about animal contests.
• Much of the critique agrees with our original essay despite attempting to disagree.
• However, our presentation of the original sequential assessment model was not correct.
• It was subsequent interpretations of SAM that presumed cognitively complex processes.
• We still urge caution in using complex explanations when simple explanations will suffice.