Accordingly, control involves primary and secondary forms of control dealing with selection and compensation of factors and resources used to facilitate resilience and positive youth development. All these factors lead to coping, thereby which is then conducive to resilience and positive youth development [66�C70]. Hence, control and/or coping are common causes of both resilience and positive youth development, thus creating an illusion of relationship.6. DiscussionThe aforementioned eight possible relationships between resilience and positive youth development are not necessarily mutually exclusive, since they can operate at the same time in an additive way. This is because both resilience and positive youth development can take many forms, as either dynamic processes or static conditions.

Nevertheless, the most viable, suitable, reasonable, and popular possibility is that resilience is a contributor to positive youth development, as based on developmental systems theory. This conceptualization has the advantage of treating resilience and positive youth development as separate concepts, which avoids confusion and overlap. The separation is vital for establishing discriminant validity and thereby the unique value of the two concepts. In this conceptualization, positive youth development has its own indicators. Consistent with developmental systems theory, the indicators are the six Cs of confidence, competence, connection, character, caring, and contribution [49, 50, 60, 61]. They make positive youth development conceptually different from resilience.

Moreover, the contributory relationship does not require either a sufficient or a necessary condition in the relationship between resilience and positive youth development. This condition is easily and commonly met in empirical research [60, 68]. Most importantly, this formulation has a strong theoretical base in developmental systems theory [49, 50]. The theory tends to be realistic in regarding youth development as a product of interactions among multiple systems. Another strong justification is the differentiation of views that resilience deals with the removal of negative development problems and that positive youth development is about the positive side of development beyond problem resolution [13, 71�C75]. Accordingly, the removing of problems in resilience is unlikely to represent or create positive youth development immediately. Furthermore, a third forceful justification is that resilience contributes to positive youth development Entinostat only conditionally, in the presence of adversity or problems [13, 75].