It’s common for parents to push their children to develop certain talents, but how far is too far when the child’s interests and passions don’t align with the expectations?
This 16-year-old has been forced to practice the violin daily, with the consequence of no dinner if she doesn’t comply.
However, her hatred for the instrument has led to growing frustration, and after months of trying to avoid the practice, she finally chose to skip dinner rather than play.
Now, her parents are punishing her even more, stripping away things she values.
The core of this disagreement isn’t simply practice vs. no practice, it’s a clash between how motivation works and how parental expectations are enforced.
The OP genuinely dislikes the violin and consistently resists the practice rule imposed by her parents. Her stance isn’t laziness in general, she performs well academically and in physical activities, but a lack of intrinsic motivation for the violin itself.
Research in music education consistently shows that practicing an instrument is driven most effectively by intrinsic motivation, doing it because the person finds personal meaning, enjoyment, or satisfaction in music, rather than by external pressure alone.
Musicians who practice because they want to tend to stick with their instrument longer and show more engagement than those pushed mainly by external demands.
Motivation scholars distinguish between intrinsic motivation (doing an activity because it feels inherently rewarding) and extrinsic motivation (doing something for external rewards or avoidance of punishment).
When the external demands overshadow a learner’s sense of choice or autonomy, intrinsic interest can diminish further, a phenomenon psychological theories call motivation crowding or the overjustification effect.
In such cases, external controls (like “no dinner until you practice”) can actually reduce internal desire to engage with the task.
In instrument learning specifically, studies grounded in self‑determination theory, which emphasizes autonomy, competence, and relatedness as key psychological needs, find that controlled forms of motivation (like punishment or strict requirements) are linked to lower sustained engagement than autonomous motivation.
Students whose autonomy is supported, and whose personal goals align with music practice, experience stronger long‑term musical engagement.
For adolescents, the stakes are unique. Teens are developing identity and autonomy, and being told to practice an instrument they strongly dislike, under threat of punishment, can create psychological resistance not just to the violin, but to parental authority more broadly.
Research on achievement goals in adolescent musicians suggests that when learners feel autonomy and a sense of personal purpose in their musical goals, they adopt healthier practice habits compared with when they feel compelled from outside.
That doesn’t mean external structure never has a role. In early learning, extrinsic motivators can support initial engagement, especially where genuine interest hasn’t yet developed, and some music educators use carefully designed incentives and praise to encourage practice.
But the evidence suggests balance is crucial, unlocking intrinsic motivation yields better persistence and emotional well‑being than simply enforcing practice through punishment or external controls.
The OP’s refusal to comply reflects a deeper motivational divide rather than simple defiance.
A constructive next step would be to open a calm, honest dialogue with her parents about her relationship with the violin, explaining what she enjoys (or doesn’t), exploring whether there are musical paths she might connect with, or asking if practice expectations could be reframed to include choices she finds meaningful.
For example, instead of a fixed 1.5‑hour rule tied to dinner, she and her parents might co‑develop a routine that respects her autonomy while still encouraging growth, such as shorter, meaningful practice sessions tied to personal goals or creative projects.
Clarifying expectations and listening can uphold her well‑being without turning the situation into an ongoing battle of wills.
Ultimately, research makes clear that motivation rooted in personal interest and self‑direction, rather than threats of punishment, better supports both lasting engagement and emotional health during adolescence.
Aligning practice expectations with the OP’s internal motivations, or finding alternative outlets that honor her talents and interests, could yield more positive outcomes for everyone involved.
These are the responses from Reddit users:
These commenters immediately recognized the situation as abusive, particularly highlighting the withholding of food as a form of punishment.
These Redditors emphasized how toxic and damaging it is to force a child into an activity for the parents’ pride or personal desires, rather than for the child’s growth or happiness.
These users also recognized the abusive tactics of withholding affection and enrichment.
These Redditors were particularly concerned with the long-term effects of this kind of pressure.
These commenters suggested using “malicious compliance” as a form of resistance, which includes playing the violin badly or loudly to express frustration and get the point across.
This is a tense situation where personal autonomy clashes with parental expectations.
Is the OP justified in standing her ground, refusing to play the violin even at the cost of meals, or should she have just complied to avoid further consequences.
How much should parents push their children in areas like hobbies and interests, and when does it cross the line into overcontrol? What would you do in this situation? Share your thoughts below!
