Abstract
In this commentary, we raise several points regarding Park and colleagues' emotional well-being framework. First, we question whether the term emotional well-being is appropriate and whether a new framework is necessary, and we argue that the field may be better served through other efforts, such as clarifying the distinctions between different well-being constructs and providing guidance on best practices for measurement and intervention. In addition, we note that by placing well-being on the opposite end of the spectrum from despair and depression, Park and colleagues have overlooked the influences of stress, distress, and life challenges on shaping positive aspects of well-being, and vice versa. Furthermore, we challenge the conceptualization of well-being as encompassing how positive an individual feels generally and about life overall. In its current form, this definition of well-being is overly static and trait-like, whereas a process-oriented conceptualization would more closely align with how well-being unfolds in real-life contexts and would be more suitable for identifying mechanistic targets for intervention. Finally, we raise the concern that the process for developing this definition of well-being did not actively involve input from diverse communities that have historically been disserved and underrepresented in research, practice, and policy. The cultural differences in constituents of well-being as well as evidence demonstrating that key positive psychological constructs (e.g., positive affect, sense of control) are less health-protective in racial/ethnic minorities than in whites necessitate greater integration of perspectives from underrepresented communities to build a more inclusive and accurate understanding of well-being.