For cheating to be convenient, there must be a suitable target or victim (see the victimization theories depicted in Figure 1). The immediate target of cheating is the person monitoring a test or exam or requiring some academic material from the student. In the case of cheating, the professor is usually the direct victim of the cheating. But indirectly, the college and the students themselves are also victims of the cheating since they are adversely affected by the cheating. Miethe and Meier (Cite) pointed out four victim characteristics that provide opportunities for criminal activity: proximity, exposure, attractiveness, and lack of guardianship. These same characteristics may also make some professors attractive targets for cheating and thus make cheating more convenient. Professors are required to assess student knowledge of a subject, therefore, by necessity, they must be in close proximity to the assessment. Therefore, professors are necessarily exposed to a high risk of becoming victims of cheating.
The routine activities of professors, such as grading papers during an exam or leaving an exam to smoke a cigarette, may contribute to their becoming more attractive targets for cheaters (Felson and Cohen's routine activities theory). Routine activities are also related to the lifestyles of the professors. Their lifestyles, such as absentmindedness or even a lack of concern, may expose them to greater opportunities for cheating to occur in their presence (Gottfredson's lifestyle-exposure theory). A professor’s age, gender, race, nationality, religion, marital status, social class, assertiveness, or alertness may affect his/her exposure to cheating and thus may contribute to their becoming a victim of cheating. In addition, the type of exam used by a professor can make the professor a more attractive target to a cheater. Multiple choice exams are more attractive to cheaters than are essay exams, since it much easier to cheat on a multiple-choice exam.