Introduction
violent
Programming that engages men and boys is now a common component of efforts to prevent violence against women and to promote gender equality [In a recent paper, Vaillant et al. [This paper tests for the differential impacts of EMAP depending on baseline types and levels of violence. Building on recent work (e.g., [It is theoretically ambiguous whether IPV prevention programs have the potential to achieve greater positive impact on the behaviors of relatively less or more violent men. There are reasons to believe that the least violent men will be most substantially affected by IPV prevention programs. First, less violent men may be more open to change. Lower levels of violence perpetration are generally associated with a less favorable attitude toward IPV [On the other hand, in-depth knowledge of the context, program participants, and intervention design support a hypothesis for why relatively more violent men would be encouraged to change by participation in EMAP. The program may cause more violent men to learn that their use of violence is outside norms of accepted behavior. In-depth qualitative research in the study communities prior to and during the intervention found that IPV is tolerated as a means of disciplining wives, but it is not encouraged [To examine these hypotheses, this paper presents heterogeneity analysis of the effects of EMAP on groups of couples defined using two different methods: i) subgroups based on binary indicators of initial levels of violence, ii) and Latent Class Analysis (LCA). LCA builds subgroups that allow for a combination of different types of violence and better reflects the complexity of IPV. While Vaillant et al. [