  A robust body of evidence demonstrates the adverse effects of implicit bias
in various contexts--from hiring to health care. The Rooney Rule is an
intervention developed to counter implicit bias and has been implemented in the
private and public sectors. The Rooney Rule requires that a selection panel
include at least one candidate from an underrepresented group in their
shortlist of candidates. Recently, Kleinberg and Raghavan proposed a model of
implicit bias and studied the effectiveness of the Rooney Rule when applied to
a single selection decision. However, selection decisions often occur
repeatedly over time. Further, it has been observed that, given consistent
counterstereotypical feedback, implicit biases against underrepresented
candidates can change.
  We consider a model of how a selection panel's implicit bias changes over
time given their hiring decisions either with or without the Rooney Rule in
place. Our main result is that, when the panel is constrained by the Rooney
Rule, their implicit bias roughly reduces at a rate that is the inverse of the
size of the shortlist--independent of the number of candidates, whereas without
the Rooney Rule, the rate is inversely proportional to the number of
candidates. Thus, when the number of candidates is much larger than the size of
the shortlist, the Rooney Rule enables a faster reduction in implicit bias,
providing an additional reason in favor of using it as a strategy to mitigate
implicit bias. Towards empirically evaluating the long-term effect of the
Rooney Rule in repeated selection decisions, we conduct an iterative candidate
selection experiment on Amazon MTurk. We observe that, indeed, decision-makers
subject to the Rooney Rule select more minority candidates in addition to those
required by the rule itself than they would if no rule is in effect, and do so
without considerably decreasing the utility of candidates selected.
