endent measures t-test which indicated that the scale possessed a high level of criterion-related validity. In other words, the scale analysis showed that the scale could effectively discriminate between the two criterion groups, namely those who supported the protests and those who did not (t (44) = -11.33, P*0.001). The group who were in support of the protests obtained a mean score of 34.30 whereas the group in opposition to the protests obtained a mean score of 64.91.Principal components analysis was used to identify the underlying factors. This revealed 2 factors, the first had an Eigenvalue of 11.00 and accounted for 68.8 percent of the total variance across all variable scores. Meanwhile, the second factor achieved an Eigenvalue of 1.09 and accounted for 6.83 percent of the total variance.Table 2. - Rotated Component MatrixFactorFactor 12The disruption was for a good cause.832Fuel protests are fast losing public support.679I would be without my car to support the fuel protest.726I am happy someone is taking the initiative.802If I thought it would help the protestors I would fill up my petrol tank.809This sort of disruption causes pain and suffering .809The Government should give in to strong public support.754Civil talks would be more appropriate than blockades.877Blockades will change taxation.700Negotiations are more appropriate than blockades.890The Government should not be bullied over policies.577.644I do not support the methods used by the protestors.594.681Blockades are the only way to get government attention.718.518The Government is correct in standing firm.606.638Blockades did not and will not solve problems.632.615Lives were put at risk during the protest.594.577Visual inspection of Table 2 reveals that, using the modified rule that a loading of greater than 0.5 indicates loading on one factor and not the other, 7 items load on Component 1 (items 4,9,12,13,17,18,19) while three load on Component 2 (items 1,16,20). How...
