I named the above factor as riskconscious non-goers. Now if this factor has a negative r with a dichotomous variable. I input on interpreting it.

I agree with your interpretation. You could also say "cautiousness".

Correlations with binary variables depend on how you code the  binary variable, but otherwise are interpreted as usual. If it was sex and you coded men=1, women=2 then a negative correlation means that lower on sex is higher on caution, so men are more cautious. 

So whatever your binary variable is, the numerically lower group has higher amounts of caution (or, as you put it, of being more riskconscious non-goers).

Thanks a lot Alan. I did the same. What got me worried was that this dimension was correlating counter to my expectations with another binary variable of region so I thought I thought I might be wrongly naming the variable. After your reply I feel more comfortable of my interpretation.  Thanks again. I greatly appreciate your timely help. 

You shouldn't have two item factors.  What are you trying to measure?

Thanks Steve for raising the question.  Yes, you are right. Actually, I was doing a KAP survey involving perceptions/attitudes and knowledge items. I was exploring about what perceptions do pilgrims hold on thronging the mount Arafaat on the Hajj Day and create crowd congestion in a relatively small area. I had 21 items. A few of the items had to be discarded for factorability reasons considering KMO values, %age of residuals in the reproducibility of the model, and the communality estimates. I tried a number of solutions and finally settled on PAF with oblique rotation. This gave me five factors. This particular factor I named as riskconscious non-goers. Contrary to my expectation, it correlated negatively with a dichotomous variable of region (1=Arabs, 2=non-Arabs).  I had a vague feeling that the non-Arabs were likely to be riskconscious non-goers. Naming the factor as riskconscious goer would have accorded with my expectations. Hence the confusion I had.

The other four factors that emerged were named as: Salience perceiving likely goers; Religious scholars' compliant non-goers; the scholar-reliant; Diehard goers.

Pl. do forgive me for a longwinded response. But I do value your input. Because of your stature in the field, I know you musst be a very busy person, I do feel honored to be sharing my situation with you.

I share your concern. I would have assume that the non Arabs would correlate with risk conscious goers. They have to perform it whatever the risk.

Prof. Syed Arabi:  You are right. This is what I am finding. What I found was that the Non-Arabs (code=2) negatively correlated with the factor that I named as risk conscious non-goers. This finding translates into what you have said.  Thanks Prof. for clearing up the issue.