Psychology departments at Earlham, Guilford, and Smith Colleges have passed resolutions this month urging the American Psychological Association to ban its members from designing or participating in interrogations of detainees at places such as the Guantánamo Bay naval base.

The departmental resolutions are the latest front in a long-running battle over psychologists’ roles in the interrogation of suspected terrorists.

At its annual meeting, in August, the association approved a statement that significantly toughened its ground rules. But while many of the association’s critics have praised the new policy as a step forward, some believe that it does not go far enough.

One of the critics’ arguments, which lies at the heart of the new Earlham, Guilford, and Smith resolutions, is that the APA’s policy should take into account the context in which interrogations are conducted. Prisoners at Guantánamo Bay and other overseas detention centers lack internationally recognized due-process rights — and therefore, the critics say, it is unethical for psychologists to work in those settings, even if the interrogations are not coercive and free of torture.

Earlham’s resolution was drafted by Michael R. Jackson, an associate professor of psychology. The resolutions adopted at Guilford and Smith use similar language. In an interview today, Mr. Jackson said he had been in contact with scholars at several other colleges and universities who hope to pass similar resolutions. (He declined to name specific institutions.)

“The APA has basically been forced, step by step, into a stronger stand on coercive interrogations,” Mr. Jackson said. “And they have made some useful changes in their position. But I think there’s still a way for them to go.” —David Glenn

Update (10/15): Kim I. Mills, a spokeswoman for the association, said in an interview today that the departmental resolutions “do not fully illuminate the position of the association, which is that there is a very strict ban on members of the psychological profession who participate in cruel or abusive treatment of detainees.” She said that Mr. Jackson’s emphasis on the detainees’ general due-process rights is “a valid concern,” but argued that it is important for psychologists to have a presence at facilities such as Guantánamo Bay. “What we have the ability to do,” she said, “is to be there to stop torture and other ineffective, abusive, and cruel treatment.”