  Abstract argumentation has emerged as a method for non-monotonic reasoning
that has gained popularity in the symbolic artificial intelligence community.
In the literature, the different approaches to abstract argumentation that were
refined over the years are typically evaluated from a formal logics
perspective; an analysis that is based on models of economically rational
decision-making does not exist. In this paper, we work towards addressing this
issue by analyzing abstract argumentation from the perspective of the rational
man paradigm in microeconomic theory. To assess under which conditions abstract
argumentation-based decision-making can be considered economically rational, we
derive reference independence as a non-monotonic inference property from a
formal model of economic rationality and create a new argumentation principle
that ensures compliance with this property. We then compare the reference
independence principle with other reasoning principles, in particular with
cautious monotony and rational monotony. We show that the argumentation
semantics as proposed in Dung's seminal paper, as well as other semantics we
evaluate -- with the exception of naive semantics and the SCC-recursive CF2
semantics -- violate the reference independence principle. Consequently, we
investigate how structural properties of argumentation frameworks impact the
reference independence principle, and identify cyclic expansions (both even and
odd cycles) as the root of the problem. Finally, we put reference independence
into the context of preference-based argumentation and show that for this
argumentation variant, which explicitly models preferences, reference
independence cannot be ensured in a straight-forward manner.
