The universality versus culture specificity of quantitative evaluations (negative-positive) of 40 events in world history was addressed using World History Survey data collected from 5,800 university students in 30 countries/societies. Multidimensional scaling using generalized procrustean analysis indicated poor fit of data from the 30 countries to an overall mean configuration, indicating lack of universal agreement as to the associational meaning of events in world history. Hierarchical cluster analysis identified one Western and two non-Western country clusters for which adequate multidimensional fit was obtained after item deletions. A two-dimensional solution for the three country clusters was identified, where the primary dimension was historical calamities versus progress and a weak second dimension was modernity versus resistance to modernity. Factor analysis further reduced the item inventory to identify a single concept with structural equivalence across cultures, Historical Calamities, which included man-made and natural, intentional and unintentional, predominantly violent but also nonviolent calamities. Less robust factors were tentatively named as Historical Progress and Historical Resistance to Oppression. Historical Calamities and Historical Progress were at Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43(2) the individual level both significant and independent predictors of willingness to fight for one's country in a hierarchical linear model that also identified significant country-level variation in these relationships. Consensus around calamity but disagreement as to what constitutes historical progress is discussed in relation to the political culture of nations and lay perceptions of history as catastrophe. Keywords cross-cultural dimensions of meaning, evaluation of historical events, perceptions of history, World History Survey, Historical Calamities, Historical Progress, Historical Resistance to Oppression, willingness to fight for one's country A major contribution of cross-cultural psychology to the global science of psychology has been the identification of dimensions of cultural variation on which national cultures can be located. Two of the most sophisticated investigations of this type have converged on the finding that while cultures may differ on average as to the extent that members endorse certain values (Schwartz, 1992) or beliefs (Leung & Bond, 2004), there is substantial universality in the associational meaning

A published database of presentations from the seven most recent International Congresses of Applied Psychology (ICAPs) was compared to a similar but unpublished database (Adair, Anguas-Plata, Unik, & Radons, 2009) on the International Congresses of Psychology (ICPs) for the years 1996-2004. Analyses revealed phenomena characteristic of attendance at both international congresses: Participation rates spike dramatically for host countries; less dramatic regional surges in participation occur when the congress is held in a neighbouring country. Psychologists from 117 different countries participated in the seven recent congresses (ICAP and ICP) from 1994 to 2006. Overall ICP was double the size of ICAP, and represented a larger set of countries at each of its congresses. Regardless of location, most participants at both congresses came from the same 11 economically advantaged and seven majority-world countries. Congress presentations are dispersed across a much larger number of countries than are journal publications. The USA, for example, had modest 14.4% (ICAP) and 11.6% (ICP) presentation rates, much smaller than its majority share of publications (Adair, 2009 ). By contrast, the USA had the greater share of invited addresses at both ICAP (33.7%) and ICP (28.9%) congresses. Nonetheless, the majority-world countries contributing to both ICAP and ICP are clearly indicative of where the discipline is gaining strength and importance to international psychology. The emergence of Iran as a new leading national contributor to the two most recent international congresses, and the rise in the proportion of presentations by majority-world psychologists at ICAPs from only about one in five to more than one of every three presentations in recent congresses are findings consistent with Zakaria's (2008) analysis of changes taking place in the world. Within international congresses, certainly, the "rise of the rest" is changing the face of international psychology.