ISSN 1671-3710
CN 11-4766/R
主办:中国科学院心理研究所
出版:科学出版社

心理科学进展 ›› 2027, Vol. 35 ›› Issue (2): 498-511.doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2027.0498 cstr: 32111.14.2027.0498

• 研究前沿 • 上一篇    下一篇

来自屏幕的美: 数字图像与儿童审美

王任梅1, 康怡然1, 边霞2   

  1. 1华中师范大学教育学院, 武汉 430079;
    2南京师范大学教育科学学院, 南京 210097
  • 收稿日期:2026-03-17 出版日期:2027-02-15 发布日期:2026-11-12
  • 通讯作者: 王任梅, E-mail: wangrenmei@ccnu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金项目“家校社协同培育学前儿童审美想象能力的内在机理与实践路径” (CCNU24ZZ028)资助

Beauty from the Screen: Digital images and children’s aesthetics

WANG Renmei1, KANG Yiran1, BIAN Xia2   

  1. 1College of Education, Central China Normal University, Wuhan 430079, China;
    2School of Education Science, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing 210097, China
  • Received:2026-03-17 Online:2027-02-15 Published:2026-11-12

摘要: 数字图像已成为儿童日常视觉经验的主要来源之一, 但针对其如何影响0~12岁儿童审美的研究仍较为稀缺且碎片化, 尤其缺乏对审美构念(如审美感知、审美想象)的明确定义与有效测量。本研究系统梳理90篇文献, 发现: 数字图像在特定条件下对儿童审美具有促进效应, 其中主动创作型数字干预对儿童审美想象与创造具有中等偏上水平的积极影响(d = 0.65~2.39), 然而含无关装饰元素的被动阅读式电子绘本在想象维度表现不及纸质媒介(d ≈ -0.60至-1.07), AI图像处理工具亦对女生的绘画兴趣、态度与持续意愿产生负向影响(d ≈ -0.55至-0.69)。据此构建“注意分配-具身性感知”双路径交互模型, 阐释数字图像在社会文化情境中如何通过两条路径的动态协同影响儿童意义建构, 并受认知、情感等发展水平调节。在理论澄清方面, 强调需严格区分核心审美构念与相关变量(如一般创造力、故事理解), 构念界定应紧密结合具体审美任务情境。研究结论表明, 交互设计质量而非媒介形式本身是影响效应的关键变量, 为数字美育实践提供设计优化导向, 超越媒介促进或阻碍审美的二元争论, 并呼吁未来着力开发审美专属测量工具与开展纵向追踪研究。

关键词: 数字图像, 儿童审美, 屏幕媒体

Abstract: Digital images have become ubiquitous in children’s daily lives, yet research on their influence on children’s aesthetics remains fragmented. This review addresses three questions: (1) How do digital and print images differ aesthetically? (2) What effects do digital images exert on children’s aesthetics? and (3) What mechanisms underlie these effects? Based on a systematic synthesis of 90 publications (including 37 directly relevant empirical studies) identified through CNKI, Web of Science, Psychosis, and Google Scholar (2010~2026), we propose a dual-pathway interactive model.
Digital and print images differ across four dimensions: technological constitution (virtual vs. material), sensory modality (multi sensory vs. primarily visual), interaction logic (generative vs. symbolic), and extemporization characteristics (dynamic vs. static). However, these represent typical tendencies rather than essential dichotomies. Digital images can be static and non-interactive, while print books can incorporate interactive elements such as flaps, tactile materials, and movable parts. Thus, medium labels should not replace analysis of specific design and usage contexts.
Quantitative synthesis of 13 studies with sufficient statistical information reveals that active creation-oriented digital interventions, including AI-assisted art training, augmented reality (AR) coloring, and AI-human co-creation, yield moderate-to-large positive effects on children’s aesthetic imagination and creativity (d = 0.65 to 2.39). For example, AR coloring activities for 4- to 5-year-olds yielded d ≈ 0.67 on creativity, while AI-assisted art training for fourth graders produced d ≈ 0.94 on imagination and d ≈ 0.99 on drawing performance. By contrast, passively consumed e-picture books with extraneous decorative elements (irrelevant animations, hot spots, embedded games) underperform print counterparts in the imaginative dimension (d ≈ -0.60 to -1.07). AI-based image processing tools show gender-differentiated effects, negatively affecting girls’ painting interest and sustained intention (d ≈ -0.55 to -0.69) while positively affecting boys’. These findings indicate that the direction and magnitude of effects depend on interactive design quality and its alignment with developmental levels, not on medium type alone.
This review makes three theoretical contributions. First, it moves beyond medium determinism by demonstrating that interactive design quality, specifically whether the image preserves an “unfinished space” inviting imaginative and embodied participation, is the critical variable. Second, it establishes rigorous construct differentiation between aesthetic-specific variables, including aesthetic perception, imagination, emotion, understanding, and creation, and related variables such as general creativity and narrative comprehension, providing a conceptual foundation for future empirical work. Third, it offers an integrative framework synthesizing cognitive-resource, embodied, and sociocultural perspectives, generating testable hypotheses for subsequent investigation.
Critical gaps remain: only 27 of 37 studies directly measure aesthetic-specific constructs; children aged 0~3 remain largely underrepresented; longitudinal designs are nearly absent. Future research should: (1) develop age-appropriate, culturally situated aesthetic assessment tools across developmental stages (0~3, 3~6, 6~12); (2) test the dual-pathway model using cognitive neuroscience methods (eye-tracking, EEG/ERP); (3) adopt longitudinal designs to examine developmental trajectories and causal directions; (4) establish rigorous reporting standards for empirical studies to facilitate meta-analytic synthesis; and (5) investigate differentiated effects of emerging technologies (AR, AI, VR) and cross-cultural variations. In conclusion, this review establishes a theoretical foundation for understanding how digital images shape children’s aesthetic development. The critical question is not whether digital images facilitate or hinder children’s aesthetics, but under what conditions and through what mechanisms they exert their effects. These insights inform evidence-based design principles for digital aesthetic education and support children’s holistic aesthetic growth in an increasingly digital world.

Key words: digital images, children’s aesthetics, screen media