Yep, it is a dated study, something I didn't notice when I first glanced at it. My initial interest was merely in seeing if there were any numbers provided in the study, and whether or not they supported Bob's assertion. Then I became intrigued with the numbers themselves and started ruminating over them without bothering to actually read the study. So I'll have to plead guilty to a little intellectual laziness this afternoon.
As for libertarianism being a gestating idea at the time, I would have to disagree. Perhaps the ideals were out of fashion at the time, and perhaps the idea of forming a political party around the ideals was new, but the concept of minimal government intrusion into the affairs of people and business goes back much further than the 1970's.
I agree that problems arise in labeling the latter two categories as individual liberties. "Equal role for women" seems to imply not only liberty for women, but also government intervention into the policies of businesses and institutions. And abortion is complicated by the question of whether a fetus is also an entity deserving of individual liberties.
As for legalization of marijuana, I would say that's a fairly straightforward issue of individual liberty. The fact that many conservatives oppose it doesn't mean they don't consider it an individual liberty; it merely means they want to pick and choose which individual liberties are allowed. Of course, conservatives hold no monopoly on the desire to pick and choose; liberals merely have a different set of preferred liberties; and though libertarians might claim to support complete individual liberty, I suspect most would quickly modify their position if ever faced with the realities it entails.
And even that may not be accurate. Supporting two out of the three issues was sufficient to qualify one as supporting the expansion of individual liberties, and the paper did not provide question-by-question statistics, so it's conceivable that even among the more educated, one of these issues had weak support.
Bert