The social dynamics of crowds in emergency escape scenarios have been conventionally modelled as the net effect of virtual forces exerted by the crowd on each individual (as self driven particles), with the magnitude of the influence formulated as decreasing functions of inter-individual distances and the direction of effect assumed to be transitioning from repulsion to attraction by distance. Here, we revisit this conventional assumption using laboratory experimental data. We show based on robust econometric hypothesis-testing methods that individuals' perception of other escapees differs based on whether those individuals are jamming around exit destinations or are on the move towards the destinations. Also, for moving crowds, it differs based on whether the escape destination chosen by the moving flow is visible or invisible to the individual. The presence of crowd jams around a destination, also the movement of crowd flows towards visible destinations are both perceived on average as repulsion (or disutility) effects (with the former showing significantly larger magnitude than the latter). The movement of crowd flows towards an invisible destination, however, is on average perceived as attraction (or utility) effect. Yet, further hypothesis testing showed that neither of those effects in isolation determines adequately whether an individual would merge with or diverge from the crowd. Rather, the social interaction factors act (at significant levels) in conjunction with the physical factors of the environments (including spatial distances to exit destinations and destinations' visibility). In brief, our finding disentangles the conditions under which individuals are more likely to show mass behaviour from the situations where they are more likely to break from the herd. It identifies two factors that moderate the perception of social interactions, '' crowds' jam/movement status '' and '' environmental setup ''. Our results particularly challenge the taxonomy of attraction repulsion social interaction forces defined purely based on the distance of the individual to the surrounding crowd, by showing that crowds could be in far distance and yet be perceived as repulsion effect, or they could be in close distance and yet act as attraction effect. (C) 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.