  The evolution of preferences that account for other agents' fitness, or
other-regarding preferences, has been modeled with the "indirect approach" to
evolutionary game theory. Under the indirect evolutionary approach, agents make
decisions by optimizing a subjective utility function. Evolution may select for
subjective preferences that differ from the fitness function, and in
particular, subjective preferences for increasing or reducing other agents'
fitness. However, indirect evolutionary models typically artificially restrict
the space of strategies that agents might use (assuming that agents always play
a Nash equilibrium under their subjective preferences), and dropping this
restriction can undermine the finding that other-regarding preferences are
selected for. Can the indirect evolutionary approach still be used to explain
the apparent existence of other-regarding preferences, like altruism, in
humans? We argue that it can, by accounting for the costs associated with the
complexity of strategies, giving (to our knowledge) the first account of the
relationship between strategy complexity and the evolution of preferences. Our
model formalizes the intuition that agents face tradeoffs between the cognitive
costs of strategies and how well they interpolate across contexts. For a single
game, these complexity costs lead to selection for a simple fixed-action
strategy, but across games, when there is a sufficiently large cost to a
strategy's number of context-specific parameters, a strategy of maximizing
subjective (other-regarding) utility is stable again. Overall, our analysis
provides a more nuanced picture of when other-regarding preferences will
evolve.
