Abstract
The target article proposes a new term-emotional well-being-and a new definition of that term, which are meant to bring clarity to a broad set of psychological constructs that relate to well-being. Although we appreciate the goal of improving scientific communication through the clarification of terms and definitions, both the chosen terminology and definition are too narrow to capture the broad range of constructs that researchers in these areas study. This imprecision will likely impede rather than aid effective scientific communication. In this commentary, we consider whether it is necessary or even useful to try to define and label the broad category that is the focus of the target article, and we conclude the potential for confusion outweighs the limited benefits that would result.