[Interview on Retirement and the SK Research Award]  Professor Jongwon Park — 33 Years of Research and Education, and What Comes Next      After more than three decades devoted to the lecture halls and research offices of Korea University Business School, Professor Jongwon Park has reached a pause known as retirement. As a researcher, an educator, and a member of the academic community who grew alongside the institution, his years at the university represent far more than a length of service—they are deeply intertwined with the very history of the Business School. Having met countless students and colleagues, and having moved tirelessly between classrooms, meeting rooms, and research spaces to help shape the School as it is today, he now stands at a new turning point marked by “retirement.” Yet his steps are not slowing; rather, they continue toward new questions and deeper reflection.    This interview captures his reflections on the years spent at the podium, memories of campus life, relationships with students, and research that continues even as he enters retirement. His words offer a candid perspective shaped by decades of moving in step with the Business School. What follows is a conversation with Professor Park as he marks this transition.    Q1. Now that you are leaving the Business School where you spent so many years, how do you feel day to day? Are there moments when it still doesn’t feel real?  Honestly, it’s a difficult question to answer. Since last year, as I began to think, “There isn’t much time left,” I found myself wanting to spend more time at the university. I wanted to come to my office more often and meet with students more frequently, but frequent overseas trips and teaching commitments meant that I wasn’t in Korea as much as I had hoped. That was my biggest regret. I also experienced a flexible semester, teaching for half the term here and for the other half in New Zealand, where my wife lives. As a result, I simply wasn’t physically present on campus very much. This past fall semester, I deliberately took on a regular course so that I could meet students more often and intentionally increase my interactions with fellow faculty members. But once the semester ended and the break began, that’s when it really started to sink in. The thought of having to leave and clear out my office made everything feel real. (Laughs) I even jokingly thought, “Should I just keep occupying the office?” Recently, I’ve received congratulations at various events marking my retirement, and a large-scale BGS performance was also held. Going through those moments, retirement has gradually begun to feel real. Still, it doesn’t feel completely concluded. In February next year, I plan to attend a major marketing conference with my students, and they will all be presenting papers. With plans like that still ahead, it still feels like my work is very much ongoing.    Q2. You have spent well over 30 years at Korea University Business School. What does this period mean to you now?  For me, it was a scholar’s time. I believe that the essence of being a professor does not end with teaching; ultimately, it is time accumulated through research. I will remember the 33 years I spent here as years devoted to scholarship. In that sense, I consistently emphasized the value of research and helped support the Business School’s shift from a teaching-centered model to a research-centered one. In the past, it was taken for granted that professors taught multiple courses per semester, and there were times when writing textbooks was valued more highly than publishing academic papers. I believed that the importance of research would continue to grow, and that for research to truly take root, institutional systems and academic culture needed to evolve together. I remained engaged in that process of change and played my own role in helping the School move toward an environment that supports researchers in aiming for top-tier journals and growing academically. Those years remain the most vivid and defining in my memory.    Q3. You have served in many roles, including professor, associate dean, and director of the AMP program. When did you feel most like yourself?  To be honest, administrative work was not something that suited me particularly well. I served in various administrative positions, including department chair, but the responsibilities that came with them were never easy. Still, I understood that the decisions made in those roles could directly affect the School’s reputation and research environment, so whenever I took on such responsibilities, I approached them with a strong sense of duty. As department chair, in particular, I focused on reorganizing systems and processes with a long-term, future-oriented perspective. At the time, the roles of dean and graduate school dean were separate, and I believed that integrating them was necessary for the Business School to gain greater momentum for growth. Building consensus required meeting senior professors individually and persuading them, which was no small task. During that process, Dean Jang Ha-sung was a tremendous source of support, and together with many senior colleagues, we worked to guide the School through a period of change. Seeing that the integrated dean–graduate dean system has continued to function stably to this day, I sometimes think, “I’m glad we made that decision back then.” Moments like that make the hardships of the past feel worthwhile. Looking back, those years—when I worked hands-on, meeting people and building consensus in pursuit of a better future—may have been the moments that felt most true to who I am.    Q4. Are there any scenes or moments from everyday campus life that stand out in your memory, apart from teaching and research?  Personally, I often recall a period in the mid-1990s when I was struggling to focus on my research and decided to pack my bags and retreat to Mt. Songnisan to devote myself entirely to academic work. It was driven by a sense of youthful determination—I cut off all contact and went in thinking, “This time, I’ll focus only on research.” Then one day, the dean contacted me urgently, saying there was something the school absolutely needed. That call brought me back to campus, where I ended up taking on the role of department chair. Looking back, it may seem like a rather unconventional choice, but it reflected how desperate and earnest I was at the time. I feel deep gratitude toward the colleagues who shared those ups and downs with me, as well as to the dean who called me back to the school.    Q5. Looking back now, is there something you feel you can say to yourself, “I did well”?  In many ways, this connects to what I mentioned earlier. I have always thought of myself as closer to a scholar than simply a professor, and I did everything I could to support junior colleagues who wished to pursue a scholarly path. When I look back on what was accomplished through those efforts, there are many things I feel I can say were done well. One such effort was working toward an environment where professors would not need to supplement their income through outside lectures, but could instead focus on research. This involved restructuring promotion and evaluation systems around research performance, establishing research support mechanisms, and refining faculty recruitment and support frameworks. Expanding administrative support—by significantly increasing the number of contract staff so that individual professors would not bear administrative burdens alone—was part of the same effort. I was also involved in establishing the Research Committee, serving as its chair, creating the SK Research Paper Award, and participating in revisions to the journal list. Most importantly, in order to address the inadequate support for doctoral students at the time, we introduced tuition waivers and monthly stipends, laying the groundwork for doctoral students to focus stably on their roles as research assistants. Ultimately, I had one guiding hope: that good research would not depend solely on individual willpower, but would become something that could naturally flourish within a supportive institutional environment. If I was able to help move the School even a little closer to that goal, I believe I can say to myself that I did well.  (Editor’s note: The research-performance-centered institutional reforms and expanded research support infrastructure promoted by Professor Park later became an important foundation for the Business School to become the first in Korea to meet international accreditation standards such as AACSB and EQUIS, which evaluate not only educational quality but also faculty research capability and performance management systems.)    Q6. As a space rather than just a workplace, how do you think you will remember Korea University Business School?  It feels like the place where my life truly took shape. I spent far more time at the School than at home, and more time sharing meals with students than eating at home. Students came to feel like family, and there were many nights when we stayed up working together. In the past, the environment was far from comfortable—there was even a rule that the lights in research offices had to be turned off by 11 p.m. Even so, enduring those conditions, it became a place where I spent more time than anywhere else, even more than home. People often say that happiness in life rests on two pillars: family and work. I feel deeply grateful that I was fortunate on the “work” side as well. Being able to research, to speak about what I wanted to say, to meet students—and to have all of that become my profession—I can’t imagine a better place to work than this.    Q7. Even as you approach retirement, you have continued active research and recently received the SK Research Paper Award. What motivated this research, and what was the core question?  This research began with a broad question: how do people’s preferences change depending on context? It reflects an attempt to examine more closely changes that cannot be fully explained by traditional consumer behavior models emphasized in behavioral economics. While this research itself is a significant achievement for me, I would also like to take this opportunity to mention one particularly meaningful paper. The paper that received the SK Research Paper Award last year was completed solely with my students, without any foreign co-authors. Achieving strong results and receiving an award through “research done by us alone” was especially meaningful. All of my research has always been conducted together with my students, and that fact is deeply significant to me. Many ideas emerged during trips with students, often from seminar discussions held over lunch. Questions raised in everyday conversations became research ideas and eventually papers, and the studies introduced here were born in the same way. I believe research does not emerge only in special moments, but from time accumulated together. I feel great pride that these meaningful papers were published in prestigious journals and recognized with awards.    Q8. This research seems readily applicable to real-world marketing practice. What implications should marketers pay particular attention to?  I believe these effects may appear even more clearly in online environments than in offline ones. In physical stores, there are many variables—such as crowding or avoidance factors—that can dilute the impact. On the web, however, attention is more easily focused on a single point, which can make the effect more pronounced. Mobile environments, however, present a different situation. Because user behavior is largely driven by vertical scrolling, attention tends to be more dispersed, potentially weakening the same effect. When applying these findings in practice, marketers need to carefully consider the usage context specific to each channel.    Q9. Based on this research experience, what advice would you like to give to students who aspire to study consumer behavior or marketing?  Consumer behavior is more irrational than we often assume. The same applies to customer satisfaction. Doing a good job alone is not enough; what truly matters is how consumers perceive and evaluate what is done for them. Just as parents cannot fully understand their own children, it is difficult to claim that we truly “know” consumers. Nevertheless, we still need to make predictions to some extent, which is why the idea of predictable irrationality is so important. If we can understand behavior, we can predict it; and if we can predict it, we can turn that understanding into strategy. In this regard, a book such as Predictably Irrational can also be very helpful.    Q10. Finally, is there anything you would like to say to members of the Business School and to readers of this interview?  The Business School is home to many outstanding professors, and in recent years, many newly appointed faculty members with impressive backgrounds have joined us as well. What truly matters, I believe, is how the School supports these individuals so that their potential can fully flourish and develop in a world-class direction. I hope that anyone who dreams big—big enough to aspire to compete with Harvard—will feel encouraged to challenge themselves here. I also hope that Korea University will remain a source of deep pride in the hearts of its members. I would also like to express my gratitude. I have always felt thankful toward my students. Many things were possible because students chose me as their advisor. I wanted to tell them, “Your potential is greater than you think,” and I have seen many cases where that proved to be true. I believe that the role of an advisor is ultimately to believe in that potential and to help build the path forward together. Lastly, I would like to thank my senior colleagues and peers as well. Thanks to everyone who supported and celebrated my retirement in so many ways, I feel both happy and deeply grateful.    Though he steps away from the podium upon reaching retirement, his questions about research and education remain firmly in the present tense. The time he spent at Korea University Business School stands as more than a record of classes taught or research achievements; it reflects a steady fulfillment of roles and responsibilities within an academic community. While he lays down the title of professor, the questions he raised and the directions he set will continue to resonate throughout the School’s teaching and research. Even as he brings a long career to a close, he continues to leave questions for the next generation.        Below are introduction to a paper by Professor Jongwon Park that received the SK Research Paper Award, as mentioned in the interview.    In 2025, a paper co-authored by Professor Jongwon Park of Korea University Business School, titled “The Impact of a Horizontal Versus Vertical Product Display on the Attraction Effect” (with Jungkeun Kim and Harmen Oppewal), was accepted for publication in the Journal of Marketing Research and received the SK Research Paper Award. This study examined how horizontal versus vertical product displays influence consumer choice and found that horizontal displays generate a stronger attraction effect than vertical displays. This occurs because horizontal displays make it easier for consumers to compare alternatives and quickly recognize asymmetrically dominated relationships. These effects were confirmed in both real purchase situations and hypothetical choice scenarios, and were observed consistently across various product categories. The findings highlight the importance of spatial display design in shaping consumer judgment and choice.    (Original) Marketers can display their products horizontally or vertically in both online and offline settings. This display orientation has been shown to influence consumers’ judgments about individual products. The present research extends the literature by investigating the moderating impact of display orientation on the attraction effect, one of the most well-established context effects in choice. A total of eleven studies, including seven pre-registered experiments, document a novel finding that the attraction effect is stronger when choice alternatives are displayed horizontally rather than vertically. This moderating influence is replicated in both consequential choices and hypothetical scenarios and shown to generalize over diverse product categories. We explain this influence by proposing that a horizontal (vs. vertical) display increases the ease of comparing choice alternatives, leading consumers to notice the asymmetric dominance (AD) relationship among them more easily. Consistent with this mechanism, we find that the moderating influence of display orientation attenuates when individuals are guided to recognize the AD relationship or when their ability to compare vertically displayed products is momentarily enhanced. The present research thus demonstrates a significant effect of spatial orientation on the comparison and evaluation of alternatives. Theoretical and managerial implications of findings are discussed.     In 2024, a paper co-authored by Professor Jongwon Park, titled “Consumer Moral Decision Making: The Impact of Alignable versus Nonalignable Differences” (with Sang Kyu Park, Young Joo Cho, Jungkeun Kim, and Jin Yong Lee), was accepted for publication in the Journal of Consumer Research and received the SK Research Paper Award. This study examined how alignable differences and nonalignable differences—frequently examined in consumer decision-making—operate in contexts involving moral attributes. While prior research has proposed an alignability effect, in which alignable differences exert a greater influence on choice, this study demonstrated a nonalignability effect in moral attribute trade-offs. Across eight studies (N = 2,861), the findings showed that nonalignable moral differences exert a stronger influence on consumer choice. In other words, even when an option is somewhat inferior on alignable moral criteria, consumers tend to prefer it if it presents a unique, nonalignable moral superiority over alternatives. These findings suggest that when designing moral or ESG-related messages, the way information is structured for comparison—whether alignable or nonalignable—can itself play a decisive role in shaping consumer choice.    (Original) Consumer choice decisions often involve a tradeoff between an alignable difference (a difference along a shared attribute) and a nonalignable difference (a difference between unique attributes of each alternative). For example, Café A provides friendly service, while Café B offers unwelcoming service (an alignable difference). However, Café A occasionally makes billing errors, and Café B has comfortable seating (a nonalignable difference). Prior research shows that alignable differences tend to have a greater impact on choice than nonalignable differences (known as the “alignability effect”). Yet, little research has examined tradeoffs involving moral attributes. Contrary to the prevailing evidence, eight studies (N = 2,861) demonstrate that in moral attribute tradeoffs, nonalignable (vs. alignable) differences have a greater impact on choice (termed the “nonalignability effect”). Consequently, consumers prefer an alternative that is superior on a nonalignable moral difference but inferior on an alignable moral difference. Moreover, in moral–quality tradeoffs, where one alternative is more ethical but is of lower quality, consumers show a stronger preference for the ethical alternative when its moral superiority is represented by a nonalignable (vs. alignable) difference. The nonalignability effect is driven by consumers’ unique decision process in making moral attribute tradeoffs, characterized by categorical valence coding and attribute-by-attribute win–loss counting.