purpose of this study is to examine the effect of crisis responsibility, reputationalcrisis, and the crisis response strategies on the crisis communication effect andcorporate reputation. Another purpose of the study is to articulate the mediating effectsof emotion between crisis responsibility, reputational crisis, crisis response strategies andthe crisis communication effect and corporate reputation. The present study utilized a 2(lowcrisis responsibility/high crisis responsibility) X 2(CA reputational crisis/CSR reputational crisis)X 3(scapegoating strategy/ingratiation strategy/apology strategy) factorial design for purposesof the study. The findings based on online national sample show categorization of reputationalcrisis – CA(Corporate Ability) and CSR(Corporate Social Responsibility) - has significant effectin the process of crisis communication. First, reputational crisis has influence on the crisiscommunication effect interacting with the types of crisis response strategy. In the case of CA reputational crisis, apology strategy and ingratiation strategy were more acceptable than scapegoating strategy. Second, reputational crisis interacting with crisis responsibility affectedperception of corporate reputation. In the case of CSR reputational crisis, the people assessedCSR reputation negatively. The third findings of this research is that reputational crisis caused emotion, expecially anger. In addition, anger mediated completely between crisis responsibility,reputational crisis, crisis response strategies and the crisis communication effect and corporatereputation. Theoretical and practical implications as well as the limitations and suggestions for future studies are discussed.