Four methods are described for pursuing and resolving differences of interest in a dyad: bargaining, reliance on content‐specific norms, reliance on equity norms, and reliance on the norm of mutual responsiveness. Bargaining entails a number of dilemmas and other problems that are largely avoided when dyads rely on norms. Reliance on content‐specific and equity norms poses other problems that are avoided by mutual responsiveness. A theory of changing patterns in the use of these methods is advanced. The theory holds that (a) content‐specific norms give way to the norm of mutual responsiveness in crises produced by changing needs, and (b) reliance on mutual responsiveness is replaced by bargaining in crises resulting from changes in the relative bargaining strength or capacity to be generous of the two members of the dyad, as perceived by one or both members. A revised norm of mutual responsiveness can be constructed in the latter kind of crisis provided the members of the dyad develop a consensus about their relative bargaining strength, feel dependent on one another, and have a minimal level of trust in one an