  Evolutionary game theory assumes that individuals maximize their benefits
when choosing strategies. However, an alternative perspective proposes that
individuals seek to maximize the benefits of others. To explore the
relationship between these perspectives, we develop a model where self- and
other-regarding preferences compete in public goods games. We find that
other-regarding preferences are more effective in promoting cooperation, even
when self-regarding preferences are more productive. Cooperators with different
preferences can coexist in a new phase where two classic solutions invade each
other, resulting in a dynamical equilibrium. As a consequence, a lower
productivity of self-regarding cooperation can provide a higher cooperation
level. Our results, which are also valid in a well-mixed population, may
explain why other-regarding preferences could be a viable and frequently
observed attitude in human society.
