This mixed-methods study's main goal was to examine whether teachers' conflict intervention strategies are contingent upon children's insistence level (i.e., unwillingness or inability to understand others' perspectives) and whether this support leads to different outcomes. An additional goal was to under-stand teachers' perceptions of peer conflicts and the reasons underlying their decision-making in conflict intervention. A total of 155 peer conflicts were identified in a mixed-age preschool classroom in an urban early-learning center during observations involving 15 preschool children (M age = 47.25 months, SD age = 8.39 months) and three teachers. Peer conflicts were captured using head-mounted cameras worn by the children during naturalistic activities. Peer conflicts tended to occur briefly and frequently, and teachers intervened less than one-half of these conflicts. Findings from a lag-sequential analysis showed that teachers were more likely to intervene in a dyadic conflict when both children exhibited moderate to high insistent behavior. Although teachers mostly used cessation over mediation strategies to intervene, mediation strategies tended to have better outcomes than those without teacher intervention, which were better than cessation strategies. The quantitative findings were triangulated with qualitative evidence from an interview and a stimulated recall conducted with the master teacher, demonstrating that teachers' conflict intervention involves a complex decision-making process. The results are drawn from children's first-person perspective and teacher perceptions and provide a nuanced understanding of peer conflict and teachers' role in facilitating preschool children's conflict resolution.