Abstract
In this chapter, the authors argue that outcome measures such as attitude change (or other ostensibly effective dissonance-reduction strategies, such as bolstering, self affirmation or trivialization) cannot provide evidence of the process assumptions of dissonance theory because such measures are silent regarding underlying processes. Thus, the methods most commonly used to test dissonance assumptions are limited in what they can reveal about the nature of the dissonance and whether dissonance-reduction strategies are effective in alleviating dissonance-related distress. Our position is that dissonance theorists have asked too much of attitude change (and other outcome measures). We suggest that more thorough and complete testing of dissonance theory may be possible if we expand our methodological tools in the assessment of dissonance. To this end, we offer one such tool, a measure of self-reported affect (the dissonance thermometer), and provide evidence supporting the efficacy of it as a measure that is sensitive to both dissonance induction and reduction.