As short-video platforms become deeply embedded in global digital life, recommendation algorithms have emerged as a core force shaping contemporary information dissemination and user cognition. From the perspective of communication studies, this paper adopts the narrative literature review method to systematically sort out the mechanism, social impact and cultural differences of short-video algorithms represented by TikTok/Douyin. The study finds that: firstly, the relationship between algorithms and users is not one-way control, but a two-way dynamic feedback loop of "data input - algorithm prediction - behavior adaptation"; secondly, while promoting the democratization of content production, economic empowerment and knowledge popularization, recommendation algorithms have also triggered profound social risks such as digital addiction, political polarization and algorithmic discrimination; thirdly, the large-scale application of generative AI is extending the power of algorithms from "content distribution" upstream to "content production", exacerbating the governance difficulty of copyright infringement and the proliferation of misinformation. Finally, a comparison based on Hofstede's cultural dimension theory shows that the algorithmic logic of Douyin and TikTok reflects deep cultural differences between the East and the West in collectivism/individualism and power distance. This paper argues that short-video algorithms are not value-neutral technical tools. Future algorithm governance needs to strike a balance in transparency, embedded pluralistic values and international collaboration, so as to rebuild users' digital subjectivity under the "algorithmic gaze".

Boyan Tong. The Social Impact and Cross-cultural Analysis of Short-Video Recommendation Algorithms on TikTok. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2026), Vol. 8, Issue 3: 9-20. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2026.080302.

[1] Teleprompter.com. (2025). TikTok Statistics 2025: Global Trends in the Creator Economy.

[2] Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You. Penguin Press.

[3] European Parliament Research Service. (2025). Information manipulation in the age of generative artificial intelligence. EPRS Briefing, 779259.

[4] ByteDance. (2022). Monolith: Real-Time Recommendation System With Collisionless Embedding Table. ACM RecSys 2022.

[5] Motion Picture Association. (2026, February 20). Cease-and-desist letter to ByteDance regarding Seedance 2.0.

[6] Recorded Future. (2024). AI-generated deepfakes in national elections: A global survey (July 2023-July 2024).

[7] UNESCO. (2025). Deepfakes and the crisis of knowing. UNESCO Digital Media Report.

[8] Galanis, P. et al. (2024). Association between problematic TikTok use and mental health: A systematic review and meta-analysis. AIMS Public Health, 11(4), 1172-1197.

[9] PMC. (2024). Exploring problematic TikTok use and mental health: A systematic review. 26 studies, 11,462 participants.

[10] Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. (2025). Toxic politics and TikTok engagement in the 2024 U.S. election.

[11] Li, Y., Cheng, Z., & Gil de Zuniga, H. (2025). TikTok's political landscape: Examining echo chambers and political expression dynamics. New Media & Society.

[12] Shin, D., & Jitkajornwanich, K. (2024). How algorithms promote self-radicalization: Audit of TikTok's algorithm. Social Science Computer Review.

[13] Mastantuono, L. (2024). A Study of the Relationship between the TikTok Algorithm and Content Creators. Concordia University MA Thesis.

[14] Oxford Economics / TikTok. (2024). TikTok: Helping Grow Small and Midsized Businesses and Delivering Value for Consumers Across the United States.

[15] MDPI Social Sciences. (2025). Trap of social media algorithms: A systematic review on filter bubbles, echo chambers, and their impact on youth. 15(11), 301.

[16] MDPI Social Sciences. (2023). Are TikTok Algorithms Influencing Users' Self-Perceived Identities and Personal Values? A Mini Review. 12(8), 465.

[17] ScienceDirect. (2025). For you vs. for everyone: The effectiveness of algorithmic personalization in driving social media engagement. Computers in Human Behavior.

[18] ScienceDirect. (2025). The impact of algorithm awareness on the acceptance of personalized social media content recommendation. Acta Psychologica.

[19] Taylor, S. H., & Chen, Y. A. (2024). Algorithm awareness on TikTok and perceived social connectedness. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 29.

[20] University of Washington. (2024). Q&A: How TikTok's "black box" algorithm and design shape user behavior. UW News.

[21] Washington Post. (2025, October 7). Spending hours on TikTok? Here's how the app keeps you swiping.

[22] Dekker, C. A., Baumgartner, S. E., & Sumter, S. R. (2025). For you vs. for everyone: The effectiveness of algorithmic personalization in driving social media engagement. Telematics and Informatics, 101, Article 102300.

[23] Felaco, C. (2025). Making Sense of Algorithm: Exploring TikTok Users' Awareness of Content Recommendation and Moderation Algorithms. International Journal of Communication, 19, 1081-1102.

[24] Springer Nature. (2025). TikTok in Higher Education: A Learning Tool. Innovative Higher Education.

[25] Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

[26] Hofstede, G., Hofstede, G. J., & Minkov, M. (2010). Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.

[27] Zhao, Z. (2025). Opportunities and Risks: A Preliminary Exploration of the Impact of Artificial Intelligence Technology on Online Public Opinion Governance. Theoretical Exploration.