Environment and Social Psychology

Research on the impact of the information cocoon effect on employment anxiety of university students and coping strategies

Lihao Wang

School of Management and Economics, Jingdezhen Ceramic University, Jingdezhen, Jiangxi, 333403, China

Fengda Wu

Faculty of Psychology, Shinawatra University, Pathum Thani 12160, Thailand

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59429/esp.v10i10.4099

Keywords: Information cocoon; employment anxiety; algorithmic recommendation; risk perception; self-efficacy; social support; university students; digital career behavior

---

Abstract

The proliferation of algorithm-based recommendation systems has transformed the way university students can access career-related information and, although it has made it more convenient, it has limited the range of available information. This filtering-down effect, called the information cocoon, has been connected with increasing employment anxiety, a hot topic in competitive labor markets. The aim of this research article was to investigate the correlation between information cocoon behavior and employment anxiety in university students and to test the mediating effect of risk perception bias and moderating effects of self-efficacy and social support. A quantitative, cross-sectional survey among 261 students of different disciplines was used. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, correlation, multiple regression, and mediation/moderating analyses through SPSS. Results indicated that 76.6% of participants exhibited moderate-to-high cocooning behaviors and 76.57% reported moderate-to-high employment anxiety. Information cocooning emerged as the strongest predictor of anxiety (β = .28, p < .001), with risk perception bias mediating 47.6% of the effect. Protective factors were identified, as high self-efficacy and strong social support reduced the cocoon–anxiety relationship by 53% and 43% respectively. These results point to the psychological hazards of algorithmic filtering and the possibility of specific interventions in digital literacy, career advising, and platform design to reduce employment-related anxiety.

---

References

[1]. 1.Lin, A., & Liu, Y. (2020). Algorithmic bias and ethical regulation in intelligent news information distribution. Journalism University, (01), 29–39+125–126.

[2]. 2.Nechushtai, E., & Lewis, S. C. (2019). What kind of news gatekeepers do we want machines to be? Filter bubbles, fragmentation, and the normative dimensions of algorithmic recommendations. Computers in Human Behavior, 90, 298–307.

[3]. 3.Hasebrink, U., & Domeyer, H. (2012). Media repertoires as patterns of behavior and as meaningful practices: A multimethod approach to media use in converging media environments. Journal of Audience & Reception Studies, 9(1), 757–783.

[4]. 4.Kim, D. H., & Kwak, N. (2017). Media diversity policies for the public: Empirical evidence examining exposure diversity and democratic citizenship. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 61(4), 687–702.

[5]. 5.Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2018). The echo chamber is overstated: The moderating effect of political interest and diverse media. Information, Communication & Society, 21(5), 729–745.

[6]. 6.Nielsen, R. K., Newman, N., Fletcher, R., & Kalogeropoulos, A. (2019). Reuters Digital News Report. Oxford: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism.

[7]. 7.Sukhodolov, A. P., & Bychkova, A. M. (2019). Journalism featuring artificial intelligence. Theoretical and Practical Issues of Journalism, 8(4), 647–667.

[8]. 8.Dutton, W., Reisdorf, B., Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2017). Search and politics: The uses and impacts of search in Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United States. New York: Social Science Electronic Publishing.

[9]. 9.Dubois, E. (2015). The strategic opinion leader: Personal influence and political networks in a hybrid media system (Doctoral dissertation, University of Oxford). Oxford: University of Oxford.

[10]. 10.Sunstein, C. (2002). The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy, 10(2), 175–195.

[11]. 11.Deng, Y., Chen, Z., He, C., Lu, Z., & Li, B. (2024). Persuasion or insulting? Unpacking discursive strategies of gender debate in everyday feminism in China. In Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’24) (Article 881, pp. 1–19). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

[12]. 12.Van Deemter, K., Krahmer, E., & Theune, M. (2005). Real versus template-based natural language generation: A false opposition? Computational Linguistics, 31(1), 15–24.

[13]. 13.Scheuerman, M. K., Paul, J. M., & Brubaker, J. R. (2019). How computers see gender: An evaluation of gender classification in commercial facial analysis services. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), Article 144, 33 pages.

[14]. 14.Ahmed, M. A., Chatterjee, M., Dadure, P., & Pakray, P. (2022). The role of biased data in computerized gender discrimination. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Gender Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion in Software Engineering (GE@ICSE ’22) (pp. 6–11). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

[15]. 15.Vorvoreanu, M., Zhang, L., Huang, Y., Hilderbrand, C., Steine-Hanson, Z., & Burnett, M. (2019). From gender biases to gender-inclusive design: An empirical investigation. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’19) (Paper 53, pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

[16]. 16.Verdugo-Castro, S., García-Holgado, A., & Sánchez-Gómez, M. C. (2019). Age influence in gender stereotypes related to Internet use in young people: A case study. In Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Technological Ecosystems for Enhancing Multiculturality (TEEM ’19) (pp. 223–231). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3362789.3362846

[17]. 17.Li, N., Gao, C., Piao, J., Huang, X., Yue, A., Zhou, L., Liao, Q., & Li, Y. (2022). An exploratory study of information cocoon on short-form video platforms. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management (CIKM ’22) (pp. 4178–4182). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

[18]. 18.Xiong, M., Wang, Y., & Cheng, Z. (2022). Research on modeling and simulation of information cocoon based on opinion dynamics. In Proceedings of the 2021 9th International Conference on Information Technology: IoT and Smart City (ICIT ’21) (pp. 161–167). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.

[19]. 19.Gillani, N., Yuan, A., Saveski, M., Vosoughi, S., & Roy, D. (2018). Me, my echo chamber, and I: Introspection on social media polarization. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference (WWW ’18) (pp. 823–831). Geneva, Switzerland: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee.

[20]. 20.Peng, L. (2020). Multiple factors leading to the “information cocoon” and paths to “break the cocoon.” Journalism & Communication, (01), 30–38+73. https://doi.org/10.15897/j.cnki.cn51-1046/g2.20191230.001

[21]. 21.Yuan, J. (2020). Discussion on the role of mental health education in college students’ career planning. World of Labor Security, No.574(18), 51.

[22]. 22.Yu, G., & Qu, H. (2020). Misreading of the “information cocoon” and the necessity of algorithmic recommendation—Also on solving social and ethical dilemmas in content distribution. Journal of Xinjiang Normal University (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 41(01), 127–133. https://doi.org/10.14100/j.cnki.65-1039/g4.20190826.001

[23]. 23.Ge, Z., & Wang, B. (2017). From game to resonance: Network public opinion governance in the era of self-media. Modern Communication (Journal of Communication University of China), 39(08), 140–144.

[24]. 24.Zheng, M., & Li, B. (2022). The phenomenon of information cocoon in social networks under the perspective of public opinion governance and the way to break the cocoon. Journal of Southwest University for Nationalities (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 43(04), 140–144.

[25]. 25.Zheng, M. (2018). Research on the communication field and discourse space of public events in WeChat communities. Journal of International Communication, 40(04), 76–96. https://doi.org/10.13495/j.cnki.cjjc.2018.04.004

[26]. 26.Yang, C. (2024). Algorithmic recommendation as a mediator: The “information cocoon” phenomenon on Douyin (TikTok). China Newspaper Industry, (02), 72–73. https://doi.org/10.13854/j.cnki.cni.2024.02.032

[27]. 27.Yang, F., Song, X., & Zhang, W. (2024). Research hotspots and evolutionary trends of information cocoon in China: A dual perspective of static and dynamic. Information Science, 1–13. [Online, accessed 2024-07-01].

[28]. 28.Cheng, Y., & Huang, Y. (2024). Development and validation of the algorithmic information cocoon susceptibility scale. Journalism & Communication, (03), 50–61. https://doi.org/10.15897/j.cnki.cn51-1046/g2.2024.03.002

[29]. 29.Lu, Z. (2024, February 5). Don’t let “algorithms” become “calculations.” People’s Daily Overseas Edition, (008). https://doi.org/10.28656/n.cnki.nrmrh.2024.000398

[30]. 30.Tang, Z., Yuan, Y., & Wang, W. (2024). From information cocoon to multiple empowerment: Research on the generation mechanism of knowledge gaps and their governance path. Information Theory and Practice, 47(06), 68–75+59. https://doi.org/10.16353/j.cnki.1000-7490.2024.06.008

[31]. 31.Li, B., & Zheng, M. (2014). Network public opinion in the era of social media: Ecological changes, current research, and trends. News Reporter, (01), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.16057/j.cnki.31-1171/g2.2014.01.006

[32]. 32.Hao, Y., & Chen, J. (2023). Formation mechanism, effect review, and governance approach of the information cocoon. Journal of Fujian Party School of CPC (Fujian Administrative Institute), (06), 103–110. https://doi.org/10.15993/j.cnki.cn35-1198/c.2023.06.003

[33]. 33.Li, M., & Han, P. (2024). Deconstruction and reconstruction of subjectivity under the bondage of “information cocoon” in the digital era. Jiangsu Social Sciences, (03), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.13858/j.cnki.cn32-1312/c.20240520.004

[34]. 34.Peng, L. (2018). Illusion, algorithmic prisoners, and rights concession: New risks in the era of data and algorithms. Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences), 55(05), 20–29. https://doi.org/10.16783/j.cnki.nwnus.2018.05.003

[35]. 35.Pujinna, & Bao, H. (2024). The negative impact of algorithmic recommendation on the formation of youth values and countermeasures. Journal of Kunming University of Science and Technology (Social Sciences), 1–8. [Online, accessed 2024-07-01]. https://doi.org/10.16112/j.cnki.53-1160/c.2024.03.153

[36]. 36.Chen, C., & Huo, J. (2018). Power shift and human spirit: The technical ethics of algorithmic news distribution. Journalism & Writing, (01), 63–66.

[37]. 37.Sun, J. (2019). Legal regulation of risks in algorithmic automated decision-making. Rule of Law Studies, (04), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.16224/j.cnki.cn33-1343/d.2019.04.010

[38]. 38.Lin, Q. (2010). Rationally facing the “micro era” of communication. Young Journalist, (02), 7–8. https://doi.org/10.15997/j.cnki.qnjz.2010.02.027

[39]. 39.Yang, G., & She, J. (2020). Information visibility, user proactivity, and the information cocoon effect in news algorithm recommendation: A perspective of algorithm-user interaction. Journalism University, (02), 102–118+123.

[40]. 40.Peng, L. (2017). The dilemma of the “everyone is media” era and possible breakthroughs. Journalism & Writing, (11), 64–68.

[41]. 41.Tang, L., & Zhao, Z. (2018). Analysis of Douyin’s communication methods and problems from the perspective of big data. Journal of Editing, (06), 52–56.

[42]. 42.Duan, H., Yuan, Y., & Zhang, H. (2020). An empirical study on the formation mechanism of network users’ information cocoon in the big data environment. Journal of Information, 39(11), 158–164.

[43]. 43.Yu, G., & Fang, K. (2020). Does algorithmic content recommendation lead to an information cocoon?—An empirical analysis based on media diversity and source trust. Shandong Social Sciences, (11), 170–174+169. https://doi.org/10.14112/j.cnki.37-1053/c.2020.11.026

[44]. 44.Hu, W. (2016). The destruction of the “information cocoon” on the construction of the online public sphere. Young Journalist, (15), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.15997/j.cnki.qnjz.2016.15.010

[45]. 45.Wang, Y. (2020). “Neo-mimetic environment”: Personalized expression of short-video bloggers and its impact on users. China Youth Studies, (01), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/d.2020.0011

[46]. 46.Ding, X., Wang, X., & Hu, H. (2018). On the correction of “information cocoon”—Including big data, AI 2.0, and the “exploration–development” model. Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Sciences), 18(01), 164–171. https://doi.org/10.16493/j.cnki.42-1627/c.2018.01.019

[47]. 47.Shen, N. (2020). Information cocoon and information fairness in the algorithm era. Journal of Xi’an Jiaotong University (Social Sciences), 40(02), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.15896/j.xjtuskxb.202002016

[48]. 48.Pujinna, & Bao, H. (2024). The negative impact of algorithmic recommendation on the formation of youth values and countermeasures. Journal of Kunming University of Science and Technology (Social Sciences), 1–8. [Online, accessed 2024-07-01]. https://doi.org/10.16112/j.cnki.53-1160/c.2024.03.153

[49]. 49.Wang, Y. (2020). “Neo-mimetic environment”: Personalized expression of short-video bloggers and its impact on users. China Youth Studies, (01), 68–75. https://doi.org/10.19633/j.cnki.11-2579/d.2020.0011