This research applies politeness theory to explore how preregistrant pharmacists handle conflicts in professional settings. A total of 56 students took part in two simulated workplace conflict scenarios. In scenario A (n = 25), the disagreement involved a colleague with lower status in the hierarchy, whereas in scenario B (n = 32), it involved a peer of similar status. Responses were analyzed using politeness theory across three levels: (1) whether to perform the face-threatening act (FTA); (2) selection of on-record or off-record strategies; and (3) specific communicative techniques. At the first level, motivations for performing the FTA were also categorized.
The vast majority (89%) of participants stated they would clearly perform the FTA. In scenario A, professional duties and obligations (40%) were the primary motivation, while in scenario B, concerns related to urgency and patient safety (65%) dominated. Participants in scenario A more frequently selected on-record strategies (80%) compared to those in scenario B (68%). Approaches showing empathy (56%) predominated in scenario A, whereas those providing explanations (64%) were more prevalent in scenario B. The findings indicate that preregistrant pharmacists demonstrate understanding of face management principles. Although the results capture only intended rather than actual behavior in real disputes, they align with existing evidence highlighting the value of low-risk simulation exercises to develop communication abilities prior to professional practice, particularly in urgent situations. Incorporating politeness theory into training sessions and feedback mechanisms may bridge the gap between theoretical awareness and practical application, though the framework would benefit from further development to account for urgency as an influencing factor across all stages of communicative choices.
