When taking a look at the Expectancy Violations Theory, it is defined as an individual’s reaction to the behavior of their peers that was viewed as unexpected, and can be used to violate the expectations of another. People all have spatial differences, which are called proxemics. I believe that proxemics helps us understand that there is a difference of appropriate and inappropriate touching. Space is the core connection of the Expectancy Violation Theory. Space has relevance to Expectation Violation Theory not only because the theory is rooted in proxemics, but also because it has direct application to the distances previously discussed (West & Turner, 2010). Let’s explore how individual “personal space” within conversations varies with cultures, friends, and strangers as it is predicted and or explained by the expectancy violations theory. The texts states according to Burgoon, can be defined as an invisible, variable volume of space surrounding an individual which defines that individual’s preferred distance from others”.(p130) With that said anthropologist Edward Hall proposed that an individual’s surrounding space is divided into four different ranges of special distances called Proxemics Zones. These zones are as follows: Intimate distance, Personal distance, Social distance, and Public distance. Approriate behavior is associated within each of the proxemics zones. Let’s focus and elaborate on one specific proxemics, the intimate distance. Why? My opinion is that this proxemics set the ultimate level of comfort allowed by individual. The intimate distance ranges from zero to eighteen inches. Behavior associated with this zone are being able to touch a person or being close enough to hear a whisper. Edward Hall noted that he finds is interesting that when U.S Citizen find themselves in intimate settings but are not with their intimate partner,