Viktor Frankl taught that between stimulus and response, there is space, which holds the power to choose.

Growth and freedom lies in individual choice.

Attempts at blame and denial do not remove responsibility for one's behavior.

Do you blame others for the choices you are making? Have you blamed others for the previous choices you have made?

To shed more light on these questions, you might also ask yourself: “What am I responsible for, and what power do I have?” From there, you might agree with this self-reflective response: “I am responsible for, and I’ve got the power over what I think, do, say, learn, and choose” (Purje, 2014).

William Glasser (1986) argues that all behaviour is self-selected, which, self-evidently, means the individual decides how they will think, act, and respond. Ultimately, according to Glasser, “all living creatures, from simple to complex, control themselves.” As such, individuals are accountable for their attitudes, actions, choices, and behaviour.

Added to this is the work of philosophers Immanuel Kant and Jean-Paul Sartre. Kant argues that individuals possess a universal and inescapable power, namely the power to choose. Kant also maintains that every person (regardless of circumstances, culture, upbringing, or environment) has the capacity to determine their actions through what he refers to as reason and will (Gardner, 2011; Hirsch, 2023; Larrimore, 2001). Similarly, Sartre argues that individuals are responsible for their choices, making each person the author of their decisions, actions, and lives.

Cognitive behavioural therapy asserts that all presenting behaviours result from self-initiated thoughts and self-directed actions (Beck, 1979; Meichenbaum, 1977; Sartre, 1946/2007). This also means that individuals can change their thoughts and actions (for which they are responsible) at any time, and as often as they wish, through their intentional, self-selected thoughts and newly self-initiated, self-directed behaviours (Beck, 1979; Meichenbaum, 1977).

Educational psychology also addresses self-regulation, self-management, and metacognition. Metacognition, according to Flavell (1979), refers to the self-reflective awareness and regulation of one’s own thinking, including the ability to monitor, evaluate, and adjust cognitive processes to achieve goals. This, to me, bears similarities to and reflects the powerful insight and maxim of René Descartes (1596 – 1650): “Cogito, ergo sum” (“I think, therefore I am”) (Hatfield, 2008).

All of this research affirms that, from an academic perspective, which also involves consciousness and free will, individuals actively monitor, guide, and continuously adjust their thinking and behaviour in response to their intrinsic state and their extrinsic circumstances.

As such, the literature indicates that individuals are not passive recipients of their thoughts or circumstances. They are, in fact, the recipients of their own self-initiated thoughts, choices, and actions. This is about the power of agency. Agency refers to an individual’s capacity to intentionally direct their thinking, choices, and behaviour. No one else is responsible for their thoughts, choices, and actions (Bandura, 2006; Flavell, 1979; Purje, 2014; Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997; Zimmerman, 2002).

Between Stimulus and Response

This universal structure of agency, as the literature and research affirm, is why circumstances cannot force a person to act without their self‑initiated conscious control. This universal human condition of consciousness, free will, and self‑reflective insight applies to all people, cultures, and collectives without exception.

This is profoundly and powerfully noted by Viktor Frankl (who lived in impossible circumstances), with the following insight: “Between stimulus and response, there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” (Frankl, 1946/2006).

According to Frankl, the space between stimulus and response is where choices are made. Even when no active choice is made, that non‑choice is still a choice. As such, all self‑activated choices (and self‑initiated non‑choices, which are choices) lead to consequences (Frankl, 1946/2006).

From a different academic perspective, yet an intellectually parallel existential one, Sartre further affirms that individuals are always responsible for their choices. Additionally, Frankl and Sartre independently declare that circumstances cannot override choices. Ultimately, this means that the individual (at all times) is responsible for their choices and the inevitable consequences that follow (Frankl, 1946/2006; Sartre, 1946/2007).

What Does Responsibility Actually Mean?

This is a clear expression of denial. No matter how many times the denial is announced or how loudly it is voiced, the consequences of the choices made do not change because of the utterance of denial.

Findings in moral psychology show that when individuals reject personal agency, their behaviour shifts accordingly. Some will insist they have done nothing wrong and attribute their choices and consequences to others.

Research demonstrates that this pattern is consistent with denial and aligns with the broader mechanisms of moral disengagement (Bandura, 2002, 2006). This behavioural shift is well documented across contexts where responsibility is denied, functioning as an attempt to avoid ownership of one’s choices and actions (Newman et al., 2020).

As the research further indicates, denial is not a neutral act; it serves a specific purpose—redirecting others’ thinking and actions away from the consequences of choices made and actions taken by the individual in question. This aligns with findings in attribution theory, which show that individuals externalise blame to protect self‑image (Weiner, 1985). However, as noted, this denial does not change the consequences of their choices or their personal responsibility (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).

However, no amount of denial, whether in frequency or volume, alters the universality pertaining to choices and the self: “I am responsible for, and I’ve got the power over what I think, do, say, learn and choose,” which leads to the inevitable outcome that all choices lead to consequences for which the individual is responsible (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Purje, 2014; Sartre, 1946/2007). This principle is further supported by research on personal agency, which identifies individuals as the authors of their actions and outcomes (Bandura, 2001).

What all of this indicates is that rational beings possess the capacity to choose their thoughts, words, and actions, and are therefore responsible for them. This is why the universal law of choice applies without exception. As Frankl’s impossible lived experience demonstrated, even under the most restrictive conditions, individuals retain the freedom to determine their stance toward circumstances (Frankl, 1946/2006).

Added to this is Kant’s account of rational agency, as interpreted by contemporary scholarship from Gardner (2011), Hirsch (2023), and Larrimore (2001); these studies likewise affirm that the power of choice is inherent to rational beings.

Sartre’s independent existential analysis reinforces this point, noting that self-initiated actions entail unavoidable responsibility. Taken together, these perspectives show that agency, choice, and responsibility are not optional additions to a moral life; they are inescapable consequences of self-directed action.

The literature indicates and confirms that acknowledging, accepting, and understanding power, choices, consequences, and responsibility are essential to understanding the self. This is the foundational insight of autonomy, agency, and self‑empowerment. Psychological research affirms that individuals flourish when they recognise themselves as the authors of their thoughts, behaviour, goals, and moral direction (Bandura, 2006; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Purje, 2014).

As such, and self-evidently, the individual (in universal terms) is responsible for, and they’ve got the power over, what they think, do, say, learn, and choose. Blaming others for one’s own choices does not alter the universality of those choices or the consequences that follow from them. There is no one else to blame (Frankl, 1946/2006; Gardner, 2011; Hirsch, 2023; Larrimore, 2001; Purje, 2014; Sartre, 1946/2007).

Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 1-26.

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119.

Bandura, A. (2006). Toward a psychology of human agency. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(2), 164–180.

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Self-regulation, ego depletion, and motivation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1(1), 115–128.

Beck, A. T. (1979). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Penguin.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self‑determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive–developmental inquiry. American Psychologist, 34(10), 906–911.

Gardner, S. (2011). Kant's practical postulates and the limits of the critical system. Hegel Bulletin, 32(1–2), 187–215

Frankl, V. E. (2006). Man’s search for meaning. Beacon Press. (Original work published 1946).

Glasser, W. (1986). Control theory in the classroom. Perennial Library, Harper & Row Publishers.

Hatfield, G. (2008). René Descartes (HTML). Stanford.edu

Hirsch, P. A. (2023). Kant, Immanuel. In Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (1689-1696). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.

Larrimore, M. J. (2001). Substitutes for wisdom: Kant's practical thought and the tradition of the temperaments. Journal of the History of Philosophy, 39(2), 259-288.

Newman, A., Le, H., North-Samardzic, A., & Cohen, M. (2020). Moral Disengagement at Work: A Review and Research Agenda: A. Newman et al. Journal of Business Ethics, 167(3), 535-570.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An integrative approach. Plenum Press.

Purje, R. (2014). Responsibility Theory® (Who’s got the power?)®. Amazon/Kindle.

Sartre, J.‑P. (2007). Existentialism is a humanism (C. Macomber, Trans.). Yale University Press. (Original work published 1946).

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1997). Social origins of self‑regulatory competence. Educational Psychologist, 32(4), 195–208.

Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92(4), 548–573

Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self‑regulated learner: An overview. Theory Into Practice, 41(2), 64–70.

© Psychology Today