{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036968576709796676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.018484288354898338, 'mean_word_length': 5.811320754716981, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Classroom Cheating: Consistent Attitude, Perceptions, and Behavior

A number of successful attempts have been made to identify psychological, situational, and/or demographic variables which differentially characterize groups of college students identified as cheaters and noncheaters (e.g., David, 1967; Hetherington and Feldman, 1964; Jacobson, Berger, and Millham, 1970; Knowlton and Hamerlynck, 1967). Such studies have tended to be based on admitted, projected, or inferred cheating behavior rather than on observed cheating behavior. As a consequence of the application of any one of a number of cognitive consistency models (cf., Feldman, 1966), situation-specific attitude and perceptual differences between behaviorally-defined cheater/noncheater groups would be predicted. Moreover, the assumed dynamics of the consistency motive encourage directional predictions. For example, in a classroom setting, students who cheat should be more favorably predisposed toward cheating than those who do not cheat. That is to say, attitudes toward cheating of students who cheat should