Rosy ways to explain this result: 1. Some participants are able to predict the result but when they are forced to act on it beforehand the entanglement collaps

Rosy ways to explain this result: 1. Some participants are able to predict the result but when they are forced to act on it beforehand the entanglement collapses. 2. The negative correlation with charity spending is because the cheating participants know a better charity that urgently needs the money. Defrauding researchers is morally justified in this case. Seriously though, that was a very interesting read.