ever, 6 items remain that load heavily on both factor such that this rule does not apply to them (Items 2,5,7,10,11,15). This means that these items are highly ambiguous and as such, a decision cannot be made with regards to the component onto which they load. Examination of the content of the scale items reveals that the two factors extracted from the data can be labelled as; Factor One: Supporting the cause and Factor Two: Issues concerning blockades. The fact that two underlying factors were extracted during factor analysis indicates, therefore, that the scale is not unidimensional and therefore the scale does not measure only the attitude towards the fuel protests but also towards the issues concerned with the blockading of the fuel refineries DiscussionThe hypothesis being investigated was: those who score low on the scale will have previously rated themselves as in support of the recent fuel protests. This of course means that those who rated themselves as in opposition to the fuel protests will score highly. This hypothesis was indeed supported by the results, inspection of the group means and the t-test results showed that the supporting group obtained a low mean score whereas the opposing group obtained a high mean score. This means that the scale does indeed possess criterion-related validity. In addition, it was shown to possess test-retest reliability. However, although Cronbachs alpha indicated that the scale possessed a very high level of internal consistency, factor analysis revealed that there were two factors underlying the variance between the groups. This ultimately indicates that the scale is not unidimensional and therefore the scale measures more than one content domain. It can be seen that the scores on the scale developed can be explained in terms of two factors: supporting the cause and issues concerning blockades. Even though the two are related the scale does not measure only attitudes towards the fuel protest...
