orks. Assumptions underlying centrality indices, such as presence of a flow and shortest paths, may not correspond with a general theory of how psychological variables relate to one another. Furthermore, the assumptions of node distinctiveness and node exchangeability may not hold in psychological networks. We conclude that, for psychological networks, especially betweenness and closeness centrality seem unsuitable as measures of node importance. We therefore suggest three ways forward: (1) using centrality measures that are tailored to the psychological network context, (2) reconsidering existing measures of importance used in statistical models underlying psychological networks, and (3) leaving the whole idea of node centrality behind. Foremost, we argue that one has to make explicit what is meant with being central and what assumptions the centrality measure of choice entails to make sure that there is a match between the process under study and the centrality measure that is used.