Students’ Ethical Responses to the Normalization of Peer Behavior from the Perspective of Islamic Moral Education

Abstract

This study examines how junior high school students respond ethically to the normalization of negative peer behavior, particularly hurtful jokes, peer influence, and moral responsibility, through the perspective of Islamic Moral Education. A descriptive mixed-methods design was employed, involving questionnaire responses from 80 students, semi-structured interviews with 10 purposively selected students, and eight observation records. Questionnaire data were analyzed using frequencies, percentages, and mean scores, while interview and observation data were analyzed descriptively and compared with questionnaire findings. Harsh language was the most frequently encountered behavior (M = 3.84 on a five-point scale), with 62.50% of respondents reporting that they encountered it often or very often. Although 93.75% rejected unwanted nicknames as acceptable jokes and 86.25% rejected peer influence as a justification for negative behavior, judgments regarding perpetrators’ responsibility were more varied: only 37.50% agreed or strongly agreed that perpetrators remained responsible when their behavior was framed as “just joking.” Interviews indicated that students proposed constructive bystander responses, while observations documented varied reactions, including laughter, silence, requests to stop, and redirection. These findings suggest that frequent exposure to negative behavior does not necessarily indicate moral approval and that principled rejection does not always translate into consistent judgments of responsibility in specific situations. Qur’an Surah Al-Hujurat [49]:11 provides a normative lens for interpreting these patterns in relation to human dignity, responsible speech, and moral accountability. The findings highlight the importance of case-based reflection and bystander-response practice in Islamic Religious Education and character education.