I was initially intrigued by the theory because my roommate brought it up and we had a small argument about the accuracy of it. I believe the theory is incorrect and it doesn't reflect how emotions and actions are actually formed. My roommate agrees more with the theory.
When I first think about the James-Lange Theory it seems wrong that emotions are consciously thought about after a physiological response to a stimuli. Emotions seem to be more instantaneous and produced because of stimuli without thought. I don't agree with the process that the theory explains and wanted to prove my roommate wrong.
As I looked at research and articles there were a few things that seemed to refute the theory. I didn't look for evidence to prove my theory correct, but wanted to see holes in the James-Lange Theory. There has been a lot of experiments with rats and disconnecting their viscera (internal structures) from their CNS, and emotions were still produced. This helps support that emotions are not caused from conscious thoughts after an action has taken place. Other support from research showed that similar visceral changes occurred with different emotions. One piece of evidence I like is that visceral changes seemed slower than emotional responses. All of this along with other research shows the inconsistency of the theory and helps my point.
I still believe more in the Cannon-Bard Theory or Two Factor Theory of emotion. I think there is a combination of multiple theories, but more research needs to be gathered to show this.