Your question is about the difference between the present perfect simple (have+ past participle) and the present perfect continuous (have+been+present participle). In a few cases, there is little or no difference between the two forms. For example, there is no significant difference between 'How long have you lived here? and 'How long have you been living here?' or between 'How long have you worked here? and 'How long have you been working 'here?' However, in most situations, there is a difference. The continuous form often focuses on the action, whereas the simple form focuses on the result. Here are some examples: I've been reading a lot lately. / I've read six novels this week. He's been driving for hours / He's driven 200 miles. She's been dancing all evening / She's danced with every boy in the room

The "have been x-ing" form can suggest (possible) continuation of the action where as the "have x-ed" form suggests a more likely termination of the action. Most examples I could think of seem to work with either form. If the action is continuing while the speaker is speaking, then "I have been x-ing" is preferred. "I have been driving" suggests that the action is either still in progress or will continue after an interruption. If someone says "I have been driving for 4 days", he might be just reporting the action of driving over the past 4 days but he might continue to drive after finishing his meal. Alternatively, while he's still driving, he might say "I have been driving for four hours." On the other hand, he might say, "I have driven for the past 4 hours and now I'm tired so now it's your turn to drive for a while." Here, the emphasis is on the past action and there is less of a suggestion that he is still driving or will continue driving. Sorry to give you so ambiguous an answer. English is like that sometimes.

Yes. I mean "present perfect"

You mean the difference between present continuous and present perfect?

p.p = present participle?