Your question is a paradox .... if a variable is unstudied, how is it possible to conclude that the variable has significant impact.
My suggestion is identify the variables that have been reported to be impacting cognitive dissonance. Then select the variable(s) among them that are less tested or overlooked. That would answer your question.
Secondly, go for exploratory research to discover variables for cognitive dissonance. Subsequently, test the impact of the new item(s) that have come out of your exploratory study.
Great topic to explore. The goal is to discourage cognitive dissonance! From a relationship marketing perspective, when brands and retailers make their ties with their customers stronger and encourage trust, they can discourage cognitive dissonance in post-purchase stage and thereby encourage customer satisfaction and behavioural and attitudinal loyalty!
Please take a look at my research study on this topic---you may find it useful for your current research:
Nadeem, M. M. (2007). Post-Purchase Dissonance: The Wisdom of the 'Repeat' Purchases. Journal Of Global Business Issues, 1(2), 183-193.
There is no magic: it is impossible to make a statement that some variable is significant or have maximum impact if it is unstudied. I recommend that you go to an exploratory research on cognitive dissonance using the articles published in the main journals during the last five years. Is quite possible that you discover something.
Take a look at my work on Brand Process Model. (If you can't find it here email me at [email protected] and I'll send a copy). I believe you might want to look at a main cause - that being the fact that if the customer image of the offering (Brand Image) is not in line with the company message of what they're offering (Brand Identity), and it's not supported by the employee living it (Brand Soul), then there is cognitive dissonance. i.e. what I thought I was buying was not what the company and employees "told" me I was buying. If all align, probably not so much. Having said that, I can't say off the bat whether there is a variable which is under-researched. Perhaps the variable is misalignment.
But I'm afraid I'm not conversant on misalignment lit (if there is any).
Perhaps spatial perceptions and the subtle effect of desired image formation "jamming"? Whether it be place branding or service branding. Some elements of this is in the realm of pseudo-science (e.g. Feng Shui) . The interesting thing about this is that the dissonance may turn out to be beneficial in a particular scenario. Drawing a parallel in the following two cases: i) the invention of the radio as an instrument that enhances resonance and ii) radar jamming as a technology for dissonance. As is the case with a labyrinth- often used in theme parks as recreation; used in labs to test the limits of "adaptive learning" of rats (and other sentient beings?) by increasing the complexity of synaptic connections and so forth. In this sense, I think that the phrase "maximum impact" makes sense. And in this sense its very paradoxical nature qualifies it as "significant unstudied"- what "variables" deemed appropriate to introduce into the research design may then be informed by exploratory research.
Thanks Mohammed Nadeem for the paper. It was certainly a remarkable attempt in theoretical exploring the dissonance and related concepts across a consumer decision making process.
Your best bet would be exploring brand personality traits and how these traits influence cognitive dissonance. Brand image and brand identity are just a simple representation of consumers perceptions regarding brand personality traits. Imagine a brand like a person that tries to make new friends. In order to have new friends a real person will alter its personality to avoid cognitive dissonance resembled by others. Brands can't do this, but they can alter consumer perceptions, thus making a maximum impact on cognitive dissonance.