Abstract: Wen et al. (2024), in their paper published in Acta Psychologica Sinica, focused on the long-term ambiguous use of the word “influence” and proposed the concept of “influence relationship,” which may change the pragmatic practice of Chinese psychology in the future. However, there are some doubts in that paper: (A) The word “influence” is regarded as causal language in both Chinese and English, in both public and academic circles; thus, it is difficult to be persuaded by the authors that it does not convey causal meaning. (B) A clear definition of “influence relationship” was absent in that paper. This concept seems to have no essential difference from causal relationship. (C) That paper confused the goal with the means to achieve the goal. It is weird to create a third kind of goal that is different from causation and correlation just because the means of some studies cannot provide causal evidence for the causal goal. More importantly, the authors repeatedly iterated that the covariant and directional variable relationship was not named; however, this relationship has been called “prediction” by the academic community. Accordingly, this commentary is intended to remind researchers to consider other possible ways of describing relevant situations, and to make prudent decisions about whether to introduce so-called “influence relationships” into their research.