I found an in-depth description of the study in question. The subjects read a few passages from various books for just a couple of minutes (or read nothing at all), then took computer tests to measure their ability to notice people around them. It was all very short-term, sort of like using literature as a quickie brain-teaser to stimulate curiosity about people around you. No word on the longer-term results of exposure to literature.
Here's an excerpt, including an explanation of how they think the effect operates:
Anyway, just to throw in my two cents: Yeah, high literature probably makes you more curious about yourself vs. the world. On the other hand, popular culture would probably be better than high literature when it comes to attuning you to social conventions and rules as they are actually practiced on the day-to-day level. In other words, watching an hour of "Jersey Shore" (popular culture reality series) will probably give you more confidence when it comes time to actually go out into society and interact directly with others, because when you watch a "reality series" you can see normal social rules and interactions spelled out and played out right in front of you.
College professor and cultural commentator Camille Paglia recently stated that the most exciting thing currently happening in the arts are the various “Real Housewives†reality TV shows: "It’s an entire all-absorbing universe of pride and passion. [...] This is contemporary cinematography at its sparkling best."
http://www.salon.com/2013/08/21/cam...inton_is_our_party’s_best_chance/singleton/
To put it another way: High culture probably tunes up your Fi, while popular culture probably tunes up your Fe. High culture and popular culture aren't mutually exclusive; it's not a zero-sum game. A well-rounded individual probably needs a good awareness of both types of culture in order to function well in the world.