The "process" they define is the "program" I define, and their "process" is no longer a "psychological process", with a wide scope, which is the same as my concept of "program".

They might say they would argue that the "program" is not a "process," and that my theory is different from theirs. But it's just a name. Before 2018, they did not define the "process," and from 2019, or about 2020, they redefined the "psychological process."Before the release of my paper, in their process-based theory, "process" mainly refers to "treatment process" and "intervention process", but not to "psychological process". Of course, in a few places, it also seems to refer to "mental processes". However, later, they gave the definition of "process". In the current paper in September 2024, they broadened the definition of "process" to "physical process", "social process, cultural process", and unified everything with "process". Why did their thoughts and theories change so? Didn't they copy my definition of a program?

The essence of the "psychological program" can be seen from the case analysis in my paper and the specific elaboration of the later theoretical part, and it is very similar to the "psychological process". Moreover, in my paper, the "psychological process" has long been defined as the "psychological program", how can they say that they are different?Comparing the "psychological program" analyzed in my paper and the "psychological process" they find, are they not the same? The natural language statements I analyze can also be called them "process", and that "process" in their papers can also be called them "program".

I am afraid that the American Psychological Association will not understand these two papers, so I would like to ask here, can anyone understand these two papers? What are they each talking about? What theories do they propose? What are the main ideas and viewpoints of these two papers?

the common part of the two is: using "process" (or "program") as a common term to unify psychology; using "psychological analysis" or "case conceptualization" to explore "psychological process" or "psychological program"; and modifying psychological program or psychological process.

You could not say the word "plagiarism", please judge, these two papers propose the same theory? Note that "process" and "program" describe the same thing, and that "case conceptualization" and "psychological analysis" do the same thing.

Before September 2020, the "process" in the "process-based" theory of Hayes et al. was the "therapeutic process", while the "process" in my paper was the "psychological process". So, before 2020, Hayes's "process-based theory" is different from my theory, because the concept of "process" is different. My "process" refers to "psychological process", "physiological process", "interpersonal relationship process", etc., but their "process" is "therapeutic process".

But after Hayes and I discussed it in January 2020 (when I told it that the "process" should be a " psychological process" rather than a "therapeutic process"), he changed the direction of the theory. In December 2020, He and Hoffman and others published a paper called A process-based approach to psychological diagnosis and treatment: The conceptual and treatment utility of an extended evolutionary meta model, That's talking about the EEMM.

In this article, they abandon the original concept of "process based" on "process" in favor of "biopsychosocial process". At this point, their process-based theory began to become similar to mine. They abandoned the "treatment process" and adopted the "biopsychosocial process" apparently because of a discussion I with Hayes in January 2020. They did mention the term "biopsychosocial" in their 2018 paper (The Role of the Individual in the Coming Era of Process-Based Therapy).However, that paper did not discuss the word because the focus of their theory was on "therapeutic process". Hayes discussed with me in January 2020 that "biopsychosocial processes do not change" (this is screenshots, last time I sent you picture 4), and I can post it again here:

📷

From this, at the time, Hays did not focus on "biopsychosocial processes."But why, why an EEMM was invented in the paper A process-based approach to psychological diagnosis and treatment: The conceptual and treatment utility of an extended evolutionary meta model? Because at this time his thoughts changed, he used EEMM as a cover up, changed the "process” on "process-based" to "biopsychosocial process", and he changed the concept of "process". Their subsequent theory has plagiarized my whole theory on this new concept of "process".

In the original process-based theory, Hayes and others verify the "process change"; the analysis process is time series and complex network method; model is also network model (web model, node are symptom), see their paper The Role of the Individual in the Coming Era of Process-Based Therapy. Later, they completely revised these, and the traditional psychometric measure became my physiological measure (I once read, written by Hayes and Hoffman, but now, around 2022, which shows that Hayes was writing parts of the theory separately);Time series analysis becomes a case analysis (see Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for Understanding and Utilizing Therapeutic Practices, 278 pages); The network model becomes a process model (see Embracing the Complexity of our Inner Worlds, published in 2022: Understanding the Dynamics of Self Compassion and Self Criticism, Page 1658). This makes their process-based theory entirely my Psychological program theory.

They comprehensively revised the process-based theory, the only thing is that they have "personalized", that is, "group conclusion does not apply to individuals", their idea is indeed from the beginning, I admit this, I am a very objective and fair person. But, they copied all the other parts of my theory, from the concept of "process" to the "mining process" to the model of "describing the process" ，to the "verification process", all copied mine.

Hayes has an ACT theory. But the 12 processes proposed by his theory (six before 2018, and later expanded) are fixed. Everyone has these "processes", and the difference is the degree of difference. But there is a difference between the ACT model and my flow chart model. Therefore, you can see that there is still a big gap between this theory and mine. I pointed to his theory and not to erase his discovery.

The biggest problem with Hayes's ACT is that his "processes" are fixed in 6 or 12 processes, and he analyzes the case to use these fixed processes as "models" on the parties. Take this Jananne case, he directly applies these six processes. This is a big gap with my theory that everyone makes specific analysis and does not know the psychological process of the parties in advance.That is to say, Hayes regards these six "processes" as "clothes", no matter what kind of patients, he will put on the six clothes for them, the difference is that the six clothes have a size difference.However, in this paper in February 2024 (Through the extended evolutionary meta-model, and what ACT found there: ACT as a process-based therapy), Hayes revised the question I said "limited to 6 or 12 processes", so his paper also copied the ideas of my theory, and I put his paper in another annex.

This is the journal editor's conclusion, and I want to ask, what did she call about “the origin of thought decades ago"? Which paper, or which theory is it in? The editor can't even see that "Hayes's theory is different before 2020 and after 2020."

Most likely, this "origin of the idea" is the ACT. However, ACT is different from this theory. Although ACT proposes "six psychological processes", this is not the embryonic idea of this theory. Because all other psychological theories study "psychological processes" except for behaviorism, are they all the origin of this theory? There are various models of psychological processes in cognitive psychology. Can all the psychologists who study cognitive psychology publish my theory? Because their papers also have "the origin of thought"

I have two things needs to explain of Jennifer. Can you forward the email to her? Because I don't think she would respond to my email, she would refuse to explain both.

1.Please Jennifer to provide "evidence of the origin of the thought by Hayes and others";

2.Answer this question:

The "process" of Hayes's theory before 2020 is the "therapeutic process". Why did the "process" in his theory after 2020 become the "psychological process" or "biopsychosocial process"?

Please make sure to have Jennifer answer these questions. I suspect Jennifer didn't read Hayes' paper seriously, she didn't investigate seriously.

If the "origin of ideas decades ago" is ACT, let me elaborate, I had predicted before this that they would use this theory as a tool for their argument.Please carefully understand this theory and their current " psychological process theory", they are different, the gap is very large. If you think that ACT is the origin of ideas, then CBT, Freud's "defense mechanism", Morita therapy, etc., are the origin of this theory, Because ACT and these theories are at the same level.

ACT are six "processes" that can be called "psychological processes", although different from what is often known as psychological processes. But is Hayes's 2024 paper talking about "these six processes"? No, they are not saying these six " psychological processes," you can read the 278 pages of their paper.

Moreover, the six "psychological processes" of ACT are specific, which do not generalize into all the " psychological processes", let alone include the "physical processes" of the 2024 paper. This theory does not abstract the six " psychological processes" into the general, extensive, "psychological process" applicable to all fields of psychology, it is not what we usually call the abstract " psychological process".

Raising six specific psychological processes does not mean that the "psychological process theory" or "psychological program theory" is not the same thing. In order to put forward the "psychological process theory", it is necessary to abstract the "psychological process" first, apply this "psychological process" as an element to all psychological fields, and take the "psychological process" as an element or "common language" to describe all psychological phenomena. Do you see the ACT abstracting the " psychological process"? It is only limited to discussing the "six  psychological processes". Mental process theory and ACT are different levels, and psychological process theory is a higher level of abstraction.

If you want to establish Hayes their PBT (here refers to their PBT theory after 2020, not PBT before 2020, two PBT is different) or my psychological program theory, must be derived from a variety of specific psychological process theory of the "psychological process" abstraction as an element, these specific psychological process can be ACT six process, also can be Freud's "defense mechanism", It could also be "let it be" in Morita therapy,It can be the various processing models of cognitive psychology, or the "belief" of CBT. We can abstract this element （mental processes）from these concrete mental processes, and then use this element to establish a general psychological theory. However, Hayes's ACT did not do this. Hays did not abstract the "psychological process" from the ACT and use it to establish a general theory. In 2018, he chose to establish the PBT theory with the "therapeutic process", where he had a wrong direction. However, after 2020, he changed the " therapeutic process" to "psychological process" (or "biopsychosocial process"), which is plagiarism my theory.

Dear Duan,

I apologize for my delayed response to your emails. Because your emails originate from China, I needed to approval from our Chief Information Security Officer before responding.

When investigating allegations of research misconduct, I first identify whether the allegation meets the definition of 1. Plagiarism, 2. Falsification, or 3. Fabrication.  I ran the following publications through a plagiarism detection software program, Copyleaks.

📷

Copyleaks did not identify any plagiarized content in these publications.

I then ran a program to check for matches between Dr. Haye’s publications and the three pre-prints that you authored that I was able to download from ResearchGate or PubMed, including the one from PsyArXiv. These comparisons did not indicate any true plagiarism.

While it’s possible that researchers use each other’s ideas without appropriate credit, unless there is actual plagiarism in published material, no determination of research misconduct can be made. I would advise you to take your case to the publisher of the Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, but it sounds it sounds like you already did this.

Please understand that I’m not ignoring your concerns, but there is nothing more I can do regarding this situation.

Best regards,

Michele

____________________________________

Michele Dondanville

Director, Research Integrity & Security

University of Nevada, Reno

(775) 784-6360

From: dxx36732 Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 5:25 AM To: Michele A Dondanville Subject: report plagiarism

The integrity officer at the University of Nevada in Reno used Copyleaks to investigate plagiarism!

Dear Dr：

One of the most important questions about whether plagiarism is whether the term "process" they use is the same as the "program" I use. Another equally important question is whether their "case conceptualization" method is the same as my "psychological analysis", and "case conceptualization" is also extended by them, so that it is no longer the same common meaning in psychological counseling.Here I explain these questions in detail, which are very important, because Hayes and Hofmann have copied my whole theory using different terms.

1.Process and program

They might say they would argue that the "program" is not a "process," and that my theory is different from theirs. But it's just a name.

Be careful not to think that they write a different theory just because they use different terms. They use "process", "case conceptualization", "network model" and so on, while I use respectively "program", "psychological analysis", "program model" and so on. Even if they use the "process" without the "program", the "process" is plagiarized from me.Because their "process" originally refers to the " therapeutic process ", and in 2019,My theory defined the "program" as "psychological process" and "physiological process", etc. My theory is about the "psychological process" and "physiological process", and their PBT before 2020 was about the "therapeutic process ". So, they turned the theory to "psychological process" or "biopsychosocial process" after 2020 to plagiarized my theory, regardless of whether they use the word "program".

The essence of the "psychological program" can be seen from the case analysis in my paper and the specific elaboration of the later theoretical part, and it is very similar to the "psychological process". Moreover, in my paper, the "psychological process" has long been defined as the "psychological program", how can they say that they are different?Comparing the "psychological program" analyzed in my paper and the "psychological process" they find, are they not the same? The natural language statements I analyze can also be called them "process", and that "process" in their papers can also be called them "program".

At position 5 on page 273 of their paper, according to their definition, "dynamic, progressive, contextual constrained, changing sequence...", etc. I have repeatedly defined the psychological procedure countless times, none of which has satisfied me, there are "sequence", "physiological reaction combination", "psychological process, physiological process" and so on. Instead of paying attention to the definition, I pay attention to the psychological program of the patients that I analyzed (the natural language sentence in the box flow chart in the paper is the psychological program), which is completely in line with what they call "dynamic" and "sequence". In my paper, I have analyzed many psychological programs from the cases, and their own appearance has explained what the program is. The author's definitions, in fact, are very consistent with My program.

I can say that my "program concept" can completely use their definition of this "process"(Of course, I don't really have to compare "process" and "progrma" because both terms are my theory, and Hayes and their "process" is "therapeutic process"). "Process" and "program" are the same, because this is what I define, I define "program" as "process", these two words mean the same thing, I is boss.

However, because the word "process" is not used in my paper, here I will temporarily compare the "process" in their paper to the "program" in my paper,this shows you,that "process" and "program" are the same concept. We can compare from the actual example of the program whether it is the same as the process defined by Hayes et al(However, I define the term "process", and Joseph Ciarrochi and Hayes define the term "treatment process"). From page 32 to page 58 in page 2023, these pages have many box flow charts, the statement in the box is programs, and comparing the various mental processes of Mora on page 278, they are a kind of things. Examples of these programs and examples of the process prove that the "process" of Hayes is my "program".

Here's the "process" in their paper compare with the "program" in my paper.

Their paper is on pages 278:

“a. Attention: I am struggling to connect

with the moments in my day-to-day

life. I can’t focus on something and

tune out distractions. I am worrying

and dwelling on things too much.

b. Affect: I am having trouble accepting

my feelings of grief.

c. Thinking: I have lost hope for the future.

d. Motivation: I feel unmotivated and am

doing too many things I feel are

unimportant.

e. Self: I blame myself and cannot treat

myself with compassion.

f. Overt behavior: I act irritably toward my

kids.

3. Identify physical processes. The therapist

then probed for sleep, diet, pain, and

other physical issues related to Mora’s

problem. Mora shared that she was getting

6–7 hr of sleep a night, ate most of her

meals in front of a screen, recently weaned

from breastfeeding, and was frequently sick

with colds. Mora reported high levels of

bodily stress and fatigue.

4. Identify social and cultural level processes.

The therapist then assessed for issues with

managing conflict, being assertive, express

ing her needs, disclosing feelings, and social

connection. Mora reported she has difficulty

expressing vulnerability to friends and fam

ily and struggles with asserting her needs

with husband.”

There is a sentence like this:

“Mora reported she has difficulty

expressing vulnerability to friends and fam

ily and struggles with asserting her needs

with husband.”

On page 34 of my paper, Figure 5, there is a sentence in the box (this sentence is a program of natural language description.):

Resistance does not manifest; others are not aware; others, who found her weak, may really bully her

Aren't their statements and my statements all described actions and behaviors? They can not show "emotion". They can be described as either "process" or "program". Will the replacement of these two words affect the reader's understanding?

The 278 pages of their paper:

“I am struggling to connect

with the moments in my day-to-day

life. I can’t focus on something and

tune out distractions. I am worrying

and dwelling on things too much.”

My paper 41 Figure 10. There is a sentence inside:

Not the loss of family happiness;; focus on the "loss of family happiness" 's emotions and lose interest in doing something else.

Don't both statements express actions, actions and emotions? They can all use the word "program" or "process".

On page 278 of their paper, there is this physical process:

“3. Identify physical processes. The therapist

then probed for sleep, diet, pain, and

other physical issues related to Mora’s

problem. Mora shared that she was getting

6–7 hr of sleep a night, ate most of her

meals in front of a screen, recently weaned

from breastfeeding, and was frequently sick

with colds. Mora reported high levels of

bodily stress and fatigue.”

Here, this process is a physiological process, and also have this program in my paper,In the 2023 edition of the psychological program paper on 60 pages, the yellow position.:

hypersecretion of urine

On page 62:

“People perform different tasks, such as eating and sexual activities, which trigger different physiological responses. Eating, people's eyes see food, mouth will secrete saliva, nerve release pulses, gastric acid secretion, etc. This is a group of physiological reactions, sex, eyes see the opposite sex body, sexual organs congestion, expression excitement, etc. This is another group of physiological reactions, obviously, the two groups of physiological reactions are different, this is two different psychological program. If because of what factors, disrupt and destroy the combination of these physiological reactions, such as anorexia is because the psychological program of "eating" is disrupted, patients because of anxiety about body shape, suppress the "eating impulse" for a long time, "eating impulse" is suppressed or even forgotten, so anorexia. The same is true of sexual dysfunction. If an individual is strongly frightened during sex, the physiological response to sexual activity is disrupted.”

According to their practice, they can take "ate most of her meals in front of a screen," as "process", can't I take "eating" as "process",？"weaned from breastfeeding" as "physical process", then the "sexual activities" in my paper can also be called "process". Of course, their "ate most of her meals in front of a screen," and "weaned from breastfeeding" can also be named after "programs".

In the 2023 edition of my paper, on page 42, number 39:

“In the block diagram above, the mental program seems to be an abstract, nothingness description. For example, the description of "want a good day" really seems too empty, not like an empirical behavior. But it's a program ofphysiological response, and when she wants a "good day," her body has a corresponding physiological change, her body's chemical transmitters, hormone secretion, brain activity, visceral organs, muscles and even the pupils of her eyes, and so on. There will be corresponding changes, although these changes in physiological responses may seem subtle, obscure, and complex, but they are psychological program.”

Here the "want a good day" is the program.

In the theory of Psychological program, there are many programs.

"Confidence, sex, eating, eating, thinking, happy, angry, love, love, walking, singing, expressions, endocrine, excitement, excitement, sadness, hope, despair,...", these are programs.

So, according to the processes defined by Hayes et al., such as these "processes" in page 278:

"Think, be sad, eat, wean......"

Aren't these the same as those procedures above? Aren't the things that the process describes and the programs describe the same? Therefore, the "process" defined by Hayes et al. is the "program" of the theory of psychological program.

The most important one of their theory is to use "process" to unify various concepts, such as psychological, biological, social, emotion, will, motivation, etc., which enables them to use "process" as a common language to unify all fields of psychology. However, this practice is copied from me, because I use "program" as an "element" or tool to unify all fields of psychology, they just change the word "program". In my paper, I have defined the "psychological process" as a psychological program.

2. Case conceptualization and psychological analysis

Their second important breakthrough was (of course, not their breakthrough, because it was copying my theory): they used "case conceptualization" to explore the psychological process. This is a copy I use "psychological analysis" to dig "psychological program" method.

Let's look at the function of the concept of the case and the function of the psychological analysis to see if the two are the same thing:

On page 278 of the paper by Hayes et al., how are the six processes on the right obtained? They were conceptualized using cases. So, in position 40, on page 36 of my 2019 edition, the paper clearly stated that "psychoanalysis is to explore the psychological process" (I was still using the wrong word "psychoanalysis", which was later changed to "psychoanalysis"). So, both case conceptualization and psychoanalysis are designed to obtain the psychological process of patients. Isn't it to prove the "case conceptualization" of Hayes et al. and the "psychoanalysis" of my theory is same thing?

2.1 Psychological analysis

Hayes once accused me of "psychoanalysis", he said he did not agree with "psychoanalysis", and he argued that it was impossible to copy my theory, because he did not agree with Freud's psychoanalysis, how could he agree with and copy me? But, there's a misunderstanding here. When I first published this theory in 2018, I translated "Psychological analysis" into Freud's "psychoanalysis", but Chinese has always been "Psychological analysis", from the very beginning.And, even if he don't believe that I was a translation error, where is my case analysis in the paper like "psychoanalysis"? Are the procedures I analyzed the concept of psychoanalysis? I later changed the term, changing "psychoanalysis" to " Psychological analysis."This is my paper's definition of " Psychological analysis" Is it Freud's psychoanalysis?

“The analysis mentioned in this paper is different from Freud's analysis. The

theoretical basis of Freud's analysis is based only on his own analytical theories, such as the theory of sexual psychological developmental stages and that neuropathy is the

suppression of sexual instinct.

Freud's theory of sexual psychological developmental stage is only one of the many theories on psychological operations, which may not be correct. The theoretical basis of analysis is any theory about the principle of human psychology, such as Maslow's motivation theory, Adler's theory about inferiority, compensation, and birth order, Jung's personal attitude type theory, field dependence theory, and the defense mechanism of analysis, and lastly the theory of Horney and Fromm. Of course, these theories must be ones that correctly describe the principles of human psychological activity.

Psychological analysis refers to the exploration and search for the causes and processes of the individual's psychological activities, finding the source of a certain psychological activity of an individual and its specific process. For example, take the cause, occurrence, and specific processes of operation of the “forced anger” of the client in Case A. For the purpose of analysis, therapists can use various theories, including analysis, provided that the theory can correctly explain the laws and principles of psychological activities, and even the therapist himself can develop a theory, such as the “vacuum filling” principle proposed by the therapist in Case B.”

“ The purpose of analysis is to excavate the psychological procedure, find out the

process of the patient's psychological activity, and clear up the background of the74

psychological activity. This can be analogous to the detective work of solving a crime. Detectives get the information they need through cross-examination, observation, and so on, to understand the crime process and restore the scene. The same is true of psychotherapists, who need a variety of psychoanalytic techniques, such as psychological tests, housekeepers, sand tables, conversations, handwriting, notes, free association, interpretation of dreams, observation of patients by relatives and friends, and even clothing of patients. Room layout and so on. In a word, all kinds of methods which can understand the psychological world of the patient and master the process of psychological activity of the other person can be used flexibly.”

2.2 Case Conceptualization

In fact, in my theory, "psychological analysis" includes the conceptualization of cases, and the purpose of psychological analysis is to explore psychological programs or psychological processes, not to explain the crux of the "sex theory" of childhood.

There are many flow charts in the cognitive behavior textbook, but it does not use cases to explore the psychological process, it is only a case conceptualization, not specifically to explore the psychological process. The flow chart is also cognitive, behavioral and emotional, and does not say that they are all processes. Hayes and they copy my practice, we call they all programs, Hayes and the others guys also they call them processes.

On page 278 of their paper:

Number # 9. I unify all cognition, emotions, behaviors and other procedures. Because the process and program concepts are very close, them copy my practice and unify the physiological, physical and sociological processes into process, so that they can conceptualize the mining process with cases.

Number # 9. In this page, they use "case conceptualization" to dig "psychological process" is completely imitating I use "psychological analysis" to "dig" psychological program ", only need to put their" case conceptualization "and" process "to" change "with" psychological analysis "and" program ", the two papers are the same.

9. Case Conceptualization is available in many cognitive-behavioral therapy training materials, but those CBT textbooks do not integrate beliefs, behaviors, and emotions into "processes". However, this article here unifies these into "processes", which is my practice, because I unify all cognition, emotions and behaviors into "programs".

For example, the position of the 2023 edition on page 85 of the number 9, material movement is also a program.2023 (the other versions, 2018,2019, are all written.) In page 64, number 9, here, the theory of psychological program regards the relationship between living bodies and living bodies as a "program", the interaction between friends is a program, and even the interaction between people and non-living objects is a program. Therefore, in the theory of psychological procedures, "social, cultural, the relationship between people" is also a program.

Position of Number 10 on page 279. The conceptualization of the case here is very similar to my Psychological analysis of the case, fully showing that although they use "case conceptualization", they actually use "Psychological analysis".

The "network model" of this article is not the same as the classic network model, it is not like a spider web, more like a flow chart. Of course, there are many flow charts in CBT, but the content in the boxes in those flow charts is not unified as "process."This article copied me, unifying all the content in the flow chart box into "process", and I call them all "program", just a different name.

CBT has many flow charts, but the various factors in these flow charts, such as cognition, emotion and behavior, are not uniformly abstracted as "process" (program). CBT does not say that "case conceptualization is to find the psychological process", and the case conceptualization of CBT is to draw the flow chart. However, CBT does not say that the purpose of the case conceptualization is to look for psychological processes. Now, the paper by Hayes et al. uses "processes" to unify the factors of the CBT flow chart, calling them "processes", and "case conceptualization" to look for such processes. This is plagiarism I use "program" to unify various psychological concepts and use "psychological analysis" to find "psychological program".

On page 278 of their paper, they have a case of Mora, which they have conceptualized to explore some mental processes, 1,2,3,4,5,6. However, the conceptualization of the case in the psychological counseling textbook refers to the use of a certain school of theory to explain and treat a certain psychological problem, such as using psychoanalytics to treat the problem of broken love, where the explanation is all psychoanalytic theory. Or using behaviorism to treat children for throwing objects, and the techniques and theoretical explanations used are all behaviorist theories.In the general psychological counseling training materials, the case conceptualization is not specific to the psychological process of finding a patient, but to generally find the patients' unreasonable cognition, emotion, behavior and other factors, and then draw a flow chart, which does not unify "cognition, emotion and behavior" into "process".However, the paper by Hayes and Hoffman et explicitly unifies these factors into "processes", which is the highest thought in their paper, that is, using the word "process" to unify various phenomena or concepts in psychology. They use "processes" from psychology to physiology to social relations, this is copying I use "program" to unify these phenomena and concepts.

In case conceptualization, they use "processes" to unify various factors, and then use "case conceptualization" to dig out these "processes" in order to find the wrong "process" and thus conduct treatment. However, the case conceptualization itself does not teach them to find the specific psychological process, how do they know to use it to explore the "psychological process"? Well, they would say, "Our theory is called 'process based,' and the case conceptualization is to discuss a problem with the theory of" process based, " which is of course the search process.”However, this approach did not appear in their pre-2018 papers on "process-based", namely using "case conceptualization" to find "mental processes". Well, I have reason to suspect that them read my paper and then imitated my Psychological analysis to find psychological programs. And they thought of using "case conceptualization" and of course they learned from my paper that "case conceptualization" and "Psychological analysis" are very similar.

In my 2019 paper (page 9, No.2), there's something about Psychological analysis, and it's easy to think of case conceptualization, but in fact, it's the same as case conceptualization.

“2.5 PSYCHOANALYSIS. Therapists receive patients, the first important task is to collect information, one of the most important is: ask. For example, in this case, the therapist first asks the patient about her symptoms, she confides in the pain in her right flank, and so on. Then, the therapist asks her what caused the "pain," and the patient will say "angry," and then, Ask again why "angry" patients talk about childhood experiences. When the patient talks about her history of anger, the therapist needs to understand her anger process accurately, meticulously and thoroughly. In serious cases, patients can not recall the pathological "psychological and physiological activities", so hypnosis is needed to guide the patients to speak out. Excavating these "psychological and physiological activities" is not just for the therapist, but more importantly, for the patient to be aware of these "psychological and physiological activities" so that she can modify it. Like a detective, the therapist needs to follow various clues, find out the specific psychological process of the patient, and "show" the psychological process of the patient by the same means as a "microscope". Collecting information can be done by asking the patient directly about her”

Is this the same as the "case conceptualization" in the psychological counseling textbook? Therefore, it is easy for others to think of using "case conceptualization" instead of my "psychological analysis", so as to avoid the similarity of my terms.

Look at my definition of psychological analysis (page 73 in 2024, marked 15, the same definition as in 2019):

Psychological analysis refers to the exploration and search for the causes and processes of the individual's psychological activities, finding the source of a certain psychological activity of an individual and its specific process. For example, take the cause, occurrence, and specific processes of operation of the “forced anger” of the client in Case A. For the purpose of analysis, therapists can use various theories, including analysis, provided that the theory can correctly explain the laws and principles of psychological activities, and even the therapist himself can develop a theory, such as the “vacuum filling” principle proposed by the therapist in Case B.

The purpose of analysis is to excavate the psychological procedure, find out the

process of the patient's psychological activity, and clear up the background of the74

psychological activity. This can be analogous to the detective work of solving a crime. Detectives get the information they need through cross-examination, observation, and so on, to understand the crime process and restore the scene. The same is true of psychotherapists, who need a variety of psychoanalytic techniques, such as psychological tests, housekeepers, sand tables, conversations, handwriting, notes, free association, interpretation of dreams, observation of patients by relatives and friends, and even clothing of patients. Room layout and so on. In a word, all kinds of methods which can understand the psychological world of the patient and master the process of psychological activity of the other person can be used flexibly

These two paragraphs and the case conceptualization are very close, only more detailed than the case conceptualization.

Therefore, from my definition of these psychological analysis, some people can completely think of replacing "psychological analysis" with similar "case conceptualization".

Moreover, the "case conceptualization" itself does not say how to explore the psychological process, it just says using a certain theory to explain and treat a certain psychological problem. So, how does "process-based theory" use case conceptualization to obtain mental processes? Is it the "case conceptualization" to get the mental process? This is a circular argument.

4. Here to explain the ideas and opinions of each page of their paper similar to my theory, and finally summarize what theory their paper puts forward, and compare this theory with my theory:

The first page of the text is page 266.

At page 266, numbered No.33(33 is the position of the content in the paper).The theory of this paper is formally presented here, which is the same theory as mine. But, until 2022, they have proposed no such theory. My paper was published in the preprint psyarxiv in 2018, and I wrote the whole theory in the first edition. Therefore, their paper lags behind me. They also put forward the theory in 2022, but it was very concise. Therefore, the earliest time when they put forward this theory was in 2022.

Personalized, concrete, individual, etc., are also mentioned in my paper: 2023, p. 3; 2023, no. 3; 61, no. 3; page 7, no. 3.

No.20. This page reviews the history of evidence-based treatment, focusing on the lower right corner, "the whole process", which means that the word "process" is unified, "PBT provides a unified language", which is the unified description of "process" as an element. Unify psychology with "process" or "program". My paper 2023 has the same views and ideas in these positions: page 4, number 9; page 5, number 1; page 5. No.9; 13, No.14; p. 14, No.36.

This proves that the idea in their papers is the same as my theory, both unifying psychology use "tools to describe the laws of psychology," or "unified language."

No.20 Here, "the basic unit of behavioral influence" refers to "the" process "," process " as the basic unit, which is exactly the same as the introduction of my paper. My paper 2023 edition page 4 number 9, I take "program" as "element".

The authors cite a number of articles from before 2018. However, if you want to rewrite my theory, you can always find the theoretical basis from the previous articles, because my theory is not built out of thin air, it is closely related to the previous theory. The predecessors already had the pieces of the theory out there. But if you do not look at my theory, you collect these pieces of thought to make up my theory?

267 This page denies the DSM (American Criteria for Psychiatric Diagnosis). The author believes that "DSM lacks uniqueness" and is to emphasize that specific individuals need specific analysis. In my paper, 2023 edition, page 61, number 27, number 3.

Page 268:

No.34 The "process" has individual differences, in my paper, 2023 edition, page 12, no. 3; page 61, no. 27, No.3; etc

No.26 means that a process is a tool, not a specific theory, using a "process" to integrate various intervention methods. I also said that "program" is a tool, not a specific theory. See: 2023 edition paper, 14 pages, no. 26; 15 pages, p. 26; 19 pages, No.26;

No.25. As I said in position number 24, you can always find the fragments of my theory in the bud of human thought, and then combine them to build the same theory as mine, which makes the theory have a source. However, this is the behavior after reading my theory, after not reading my paper, do the authors of this article know what ideas to quote to organize the theory? Citing the ideas of his predecessors does not prove that the author is original.

No42. I admit that the "contextual" idea of contextualism is the bud, but there is still a considerable gap with the theory of psychological procedures. The author's intention here is to extend the contextualist "context" to the chain of psychological process, because the process of psychological process is a chain, which is similar to the "context".

270

No.3, here is the saying that both individual differences, particularity, and the common "language". In fact, it means that the psychology of different individuals can be described by the "process", but there are differences between different people.

subheading:Finding Common Ground A Shared Theory of Change

This is something about trying to find a general theory.

See my Theory, Edition 2023, page 61, # 3;Page 7, and in the number 3.

No.43. Here is meant to unify the meaning of all therapies, unified into what? That's what the author calls an EEMM, but this EEMM is actually a PBT.

Page 272:

Number # 3. For personalization of processes or programs, see My Theory 2023, page 61, number 3.

Number 27. Evolution is also mentioned in my theory, but it is not the focus of my theory. In their paper, this seems very important. In my paper, 2019 edition, page 24, number 4;On page 26 of edition 2023, serial number 38;Page 65, in the code number 27.

Page 273:

This page is crucial, to the left is their definition of psychological process, which has been mentioned above and will not be repeated here.

"A Shared Terminology" means sharing the term "process, using the word" process " to unify psychology. Numbers 5 and 6 are about the level of psychological process definition and psychological analysis (physical, psychological, human relationship, etc.).

My paper 2023 edition, 60 pages, number 5;Page 61, No.5;Page 62, serial number 5;64 pages, number 9; et al.

No.6. They divide the "process" into several categories and levels, with biological levels, such as hypothalamus, amygdala activity, emotions, beliefs, thoughts, etc. It means that these psychophysiology can be described in a "shared term" （is "process."),These are all available in my paper.

"The level of psychoanalysis" corresponds in my paper, in the 2020 edition of the psychological procedure paper, page 40, number 30.

Page 274:

No.7. The part of painting yellow is found in "common language", which means that all parts of psychology are described in "process". The author unifies various therapies into EEMM, which is actually unified as "based on process".

Page 275:

This page is the empirical verification of EEMM, although EEMM is said to be "evolutionary psychology", but, as can be seen from the article, it is actually PBT.

Page 276:

No.22. The process is hierarchical, and my procedures are also hierarchical, social, psychological, physiological, etc. In the 2023 edition of the psychological procedure paper, on page 64,6; 65,22; etc.

Page 277

No.30. I negate the DSM method, and begin to propose "case conceptualization" finding "psychological process". DSM is not discussed in my paper.

No.3. It is also mentioned that "the same process cannot apply to everyone". The process is both universal and individually different, see pages 12 and 61 of my paper.

278.279：

These two pages are mainly about "process" and "case conceptualization" and "flow chart", the first two mentioned in the above, here is about the flow chart:

279：

This page is a process-based network model, however, this is not the network model that the author said, at least relative to the network model, it is closer to my program flow chart. In this article, this chart is not like my flow chart, but, in the 2022 article, they flow chart is very similar to my flow chart.

📷

📷

This is the classic mental network model, which some Dutch psychologists are studying. But, first, the nodes of this model (blue, green) represent "symptoms," known as "symptoms" in the DSM. However, the nodes in Hoffman et al.'s model are "psychological processes", which are fundamentally different. Only the nodes of my flowchart (the box) are "program," or "process."Moreover, the network model between these nodes is not a "chain" type, is not a "causal chain". However, the network model of Hoffman et al. is closer to the "chain", although the arrows can also go in the opposite direction. Secondly, such models are often calculated using statistical and mathematical methods, while Hayes et al. models use "case conceptualization" analysis.

Moreover, the model is shaped like a spider web, where nodes and symptoms can interact with each other. Although the arrow in Hoffman et al.'s model can go in the opposite direction, it is mainly a chain type, more like my program flow chart. In their 2022 paper, because I highlighted that their flow chart was copied from me. So, two later papers (including this one) avoided my flow chart and adopted the Dutch mental network model of the process model. But, as I said, although they say they use the network model, it's actually closer to my program flowchart.

Of course, there are many chain flowcharts in cognitive behavioral therapy, and I can't argue with Hoff using flowcharts. Crucially, the nodes in the flowchart are not yet unified as "processes". For example, there is a cognitive model:

📷

This is the simplest flow chart in cognitive behavioral therapy, and the difference between it and my program flow chart or Hoffman's flow chart is that the content in the box is not uniformly called "program" or "process."But, now the nodes in Hoffman's flowchart are "process," uniformly called "process."So, I think he copied me here. He unified the things in the node into "process", which is a copy of my theory.

Therefore, to sum up, although the network model of Hoffman et al. on this page has a "reverse arrow", it still copies my theory, which is not exactly the same as my theory, but most of them are the same.

Number: 10. The conceptualization of the case here is almost very similar to my psychological analysis of the case. The author analyzes some psychological processes:

she blames herself (psychological process), it negatively impacts her ability to assert needs with her husband (social process), which in turn increases her exhaustion and burnout (outcome variable).

Here the "processes" and "programs" are the same, and it seems more appropriate to call them "procedures". This "process" example also proves that the "process" as defined by Hayes et al. and the "program" that I define are the same thing. And how do they get these "processes"? Is the use of the case of generalization.

Number 10. Here is the analysis just like my psychological analysis.

No.24.“Collect intensive data within individuals”. They said in another article, "measure the inner body with a wearable device," and in my theory, it also measures the psychological program, written in the introduction and the psychological program measurement section. Of course, this was proposed before Hoffman and me, I was the first to measure the mental process or procedure.

Measurement of mental processes is rarely written in their paper, but much is written in the psychometric paper of 2023. However, these papers are from my psychological measures, see papers in 2019 (measurement) and 2020 (Introduction). Such measurements have also been mentioned before. But, like my "citation question" at the end of this article, combining it with the "process" is built into a psychological program theory, which is the first thing for me to do so. Now Hayes and Hoffman are doing this to copying my theory.

In my 2023 edition paper, 83 pages, number 44; 84, number 44.

Page 280:

Number 41. Find Mora's morbid mental process and suggest how to modify Mora's morbid mental process.

For example, to find "self-blame" and "sleep problems", the way to modify the psychological process is to " point out that self-compassion, and sleep through a sleep health plan may be a good start.".Here the author not only found the "pathological process" (they call the network, but it is actually the process), but also proposed a therapeutic method, that is, the way to modify the psychological process. The traditional term "healing" using this theory can be called "modifying mental processes or programs". So, here, the author of this article also puts forward the theory of "discovering the psychological process" and "modifying the psychological process" part, which is the same as my theory.

Page 281:

No.11 here, the paper is in the negative statistics, "group process: can not apply to individuals, the article also uses an example of" self-compassion "to prove this point, proving that" compassion " is not the same in different individuals. The group law cannot apply to individuals, which is the same as my theory. On page 3 of the 2020 edition:

“This paper argues that psychology is not fit for experimentation or statistics. It is not that experimental method cannot be used at all, but because of legal and ethical limitations, it is not appropriate to use experimental method and experimental method cannot be used as the main research method.Statistics is the study of the psychological characteristics of groups, not individuals. Statistics deals with groups rather than individuals, but for psychology, it's really about individuals, and the probabilistic conclusions of groups don't apply to individuals. Moreover, the behavior of individuals suitable for statistics is random, but the behavior of people is not random. So there's no point in using statistics to study psychology. Psychological research methods need to change.”

It is made clear here that psychology is not suitable for statistical methods. And Hayes and others in this paper, Psychological program theory did not use a lot of space argument psychology is not suitable for statistics, because the psychological program theory itself implies the statistical method is not suitable for psychology, because every one need specific analysis of psychological program, everyone is different, how can be suitable for statistical group law of psychological statistics?

Number 12. Here it is also denying the statistical method.

Number 13.Here, as on page 266 of the paper, here is the "process theory", which is my theory.

No32.Here saying the statistical method is not appropriate, proposed the "personalized process" method.

Page 283:

The theory of psychological program also does not exclude other theories, because the "program" proposed by it is a tool to describe the laws of psychology, and it is not a theory in itself.See my paper in the 2019 edition, number 14;Edition 2023, Page 19, at number 37.Page 7, No.2;page 14, number 26;

No.15. How to judge the key "process" and which process should be handled first? This belongs to the "modified mental program" section. In my theory, this is which program goes wrong and which program should be modified first. Here, the authors of this paper did not give specific methods, saying only "working with practitioners".

Number 16.These thoughts have a lot to do with my theory,For example, this first idea, it comes from my theory.It means to use "process" to unify biological, social, emotional, cognitive, attention and other psychological factors, just as I use "procedure" to unify various concepts of psychology. This five ideas may also be found in the works of our predecessors, but now putting them together into a theory called process , is obviously because them have read my theory.

Page 285:

Number 17. This is to use the "network model", but in fact, their model and the network model are very different, because the network model is spider web shaped, and uses statistical and mathematical calculations, while the "network model" in this article uses case conceptualization analysis.Moreover, this article is against statistical methods (in their "Embracing the Complexity of our lnner Worlds: Understanding the Dyunamics of Self-Compassion and Self-Criticism" paper, their opposition to statistical methods is very clear and thorough), So they use the "process" approach.

No.18 Here the meaning of specific individual specific analysis is consistent with my theoretical thought.

Number 19. evolution is mentioned here, as is the EEMM. This idea of evolution is also mentioned in my paper, but it is not the point, so I just said a little bit casually.

5.A summary of the ideas of the paper by Hayes and Hofmann et al

In this paper, they initially rejected the DSM diagnosis method, or the symptomatology diagnosis method, and then proposed a "process-based" method. In order to put forward this method, they emphasized the use of "process" to unify psychological, biological, social and other factors, cognition, emotion, attention, motivation, human relationship ,use "process" to unify .They also focus on individual variability, meaning that each individual needs a specific analysis, because each individual has its own particularity. That is to say, there are both commonality and particularity between people.

After unifying psychology with "process", they proposed to conceptualize psychological processes with cases, and then use this method to analyze Mora's psychological problems. They analyzed where Mora had problems with the psychological process (on pages 278 and 279), and then gave some advice on treatment, which was actually modifying the psychological process of Mora.

(Of course, in Mora's analysis, these authors used "web tools," but, as I mentioned earlier, these network models are not like the spider web, and they are still a "chain program flow chart."It is a little different from the mental program flow chart, but it does not change the fact that their theory as a whole is the same as mine.) At the end of page 279, they also mention ways to detect or obtain such networks, one "collecting data within the individual body" and one is statistics.

Finally, they mentioned the "five ideas" in the conclusion section of the paper. The first of them is the therapeutic thought, which is for specific processes including "biology, social, self-awareness, cognition, motivation..." etc., in the fourth and fifth "thought", "choice, retention, selected, retained, and fitted to context", that is, selected, retained "some" process ", here is to modify the psychological process," to context " means between of the last chain and the next chain rightness the process.

In the paper, they also denied the statistical method, although not as thorough as in the 2022 paper, but they also denied the statistical method in this paper. These are available on pages 280 and 281, number 11, subtitle Rethinking "Normal" and the Psychological Homogeneity Assumption.

3. In summary, their idea are: deny DSM; deny statistical method; propose alternative method "process based"; unify psychology with "process", explore "psychological process" with "case concept"; and modify psychological process. That's their theory.Of course, this is their PBT theory after 2020, and their process before 2020 is a "therapeutic process."As for whether their own original "therapeutic process" can unify all kinds of psychotherapy, I do not know.

4. The idea of my thesis

Theory of Psychological Program 2023 edition. The paper is an introduction, mainly explaining the origin of the concept of "program" and how to establish such a theory. Here is "program", a tool that describes the laws of psychology that has been discovered by complex science. The introduction focuses on using "process" as an element to unify all fields of psychology to establish a general psychological theory.Here I also use the term "process", which is not a copy of the "process-based" term of Hayes et al., because in 2019 I defined "psychological process and physiological process" as "psychological program". Therefore, in my theory, process and procedure always coexist. The introduction also denies that the statistical method is inappropriate.

The body of the paper is cases from 28 to 60 pages. In the paper, the "psychological analysis" method is used to dig the patient's "psychological program", and shows what the "psychological program" is like here. There are several psychological programs here, which are: obsessive-compulsive disorder program, depression program, personality program, schizophrenia auditory hallucinations program and so on. However, note that these programs do not mean that everyone is the same, they just choose one of the typical ones.

The paper is theoretical from page 60. Page 60 is the definition of "psychological program", followed by "implicit behavior" and "physiological reaction"; page 64 gives many examples of "psychological program"; page 65 begins to explain the characteristics, rules and its causes of illness; page 73 is the definition of "psychological analysis", defining the "psychological analysis" of this theory, how to conduct psychological analysis, etc.;74 pages of hypnosis is also a psychological analysis technique; 75 pages of how to measure psychological procedures, it is mainly determined by measuring physiological response; from page 76, the paper lists some modifications of the "psychological program" method; from page 83, the paper describes how to quantify psychology and psychological programs; 85 pages of other disciplines also exist "program", cited economics and biology discipline examples, to describe the scientific law has two tools, one is mathematics, the other is program.

To sum up, the theory of psychological procedure is like this: using "process" (or "program") to unify all fields of psychology; using "psychological analysis" to dig "psychological program" ; describing" psychological program " in natural language; the operation rules of psychological program and its causes of disease; the method of modifying psychological program; the measurement of psychological program; the procedure of other disciplines.

Compared with the theory of Hayes et others, the common part of the two is: using "process" (or "program") as a common term to unify psychology; using "psychological analysis" or "case conceptualization" to explore "psychological process" or "psychological program"; and modifying psychological program or psychological process.

Aren't these two papers proposing the same theory? My theory was published in 2018, and Hayes et al., in 2022. Also, Hayes read my paper in 2018. I don't know if Hoffman has seen my paper, I sent it to him in 2018 on a website called Research Gate and sent it a few times, but I don't have the evidence that he saw it. However, because, my paper, published in preprint psyarxiv and the "Research Gate" station, can be publicly searched and read. Therefore, it cannot be excluded that Hofmann and other authors have also seen it.

6. Questions about literature citation

Writers such as Hoffman and Hayes cite them extensively, from previous works to illustrate their own thoughts and sources. However, my theory is very closely related to the ideas of my predecessors, and it does not appear by itself. After reading my paper, these people know the thoughts and ideas of this theory, and then go to the works of predecessors to find the origin of ideas. This can always be found, because every theory can be found in the theories of former people.They find the fragments of my theory from the works of previous people, and then rewrite the theory, which is the same theory they found from the works of previous people. But if they had not read my theory, they would not know which ideas and ideas to form it, nor what kind of form.

Such quotes don't mean that the theory is what they found, they read my theory and went to the previous works to look for "pieces of the puzzle" and then reorganized it into my theory. Is it now I can find from Galileo's work "acceleration", found from Kepler theory "three laws of elliptic orbit", find Newton before the germination of calculus thought, Then I reorganized the pieces of these theories into Newtonian mechanics and the laws of gravitation, and declared that I discovered three laws like Newton?

I am afraid that the American Psychological Association will not understand these two papers, so I would like to ask here, can anyone understand these two papers? What are they each talking about? What theories do they propose? What are the main ideas and viewpoints of these two papers?

You could not say the word "plagiarism", please judge, these two papers propose the same theory? Note that "process" and "program" describe the same thing, and that "case conceptualization" and "psychological analysis" do the same thing.

Dear Xian Xiang Duan,

Your email was forwarded to me. I am the publisher of APA Journals and Books, APA being the publisher of record for Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.

I want to reiterate Dr. Callahan’s point that APA does not have an investigative body. In cases such as these, we rely on the institution for a formal investigation and guidance on next steps with regards to publications. Thus, I ask that you go to the Research Integrity Office of institution of the corresponding author on this article and ask them to investigate.

Warm wishes,

Rose

Rose Sokol, PhD

Publisher, APA Journals and Books

American Psychological Association

[email protected]

Dear Xian Xiang Duan,

I have considered your allegation and reviewed the documentation regarding the article entitled, “Process-Based Therapy: A Common Ground for understanding and utilizing Therapeutic Practices.” I reached out to the author group for their response, and they have declined to provide citation or redaction.

In addition, I have reviewed the history of ideas associated with the publishing authors. I have concluded that there is compelling evidence that the origin of their ideas can be traced back several decades, long before any interaction you may have had with them. At this time, the matter is considered closed and the allegations are considered unfounded.

Best,

Jennifer L. Callahan, PhD ABPP

Editor-in-Chief

Journal of Pyschotherapy Integration

Hi Xian Xiang Duan,

Please be assured I have no ability to block your mailbox. To the best of my knowledge, I have received all emails you have sent. I have included the manuscript coordinator (cc’d here) on all communication received by you or sent by me so that the journal publisher (APA) has a complete record of communications.

If you are not satisfied with the outcome and wish to make an accusation of author misconduct, please contact the author’s institution directly.  Most universities have an Office of Research, which is responsible for investigating possible misconduct.  If the university investigates and finds misconduct, they will notify APA if they think the article should be retracted.  We generally do this when advised to by the investigating body.

Best,

Jennifer

In this paper, Hayes revised the ACT while forcing the ACT as the ideological origin of PBT after 2020, however, this is not true.Also don't believe Hayes and others "PBT can be traced back to ACT, CBT, functional context, evolutionary psychology", because, their PBT and ACT before 2020 and after 2020 is different, they in January 2020 after fully modified the PBT, so, Hayes and others actually has two PBT theory, one is about "treatment process", one is about "biological psychosocial process", and the latter is my theory. However, the origin of their PBT before 2020 can be traced back to ACT, but PBT after 2020 cannot be traced back to ACT and other theories. The evolutionary psychology EEMM was proposed after September 2020, aiming to hide the fact that they changed the "therapeutic process" into "biological psychological process". They wanted to give the reader the image of"they developed PBT from evolutionary psychology", but it was not.

I will report to you on a serious plagiarism theory incident,Concerning your editor Stefan G Hofmann and his paper(（A Process-Based Approach to Transtheoretical Clinical Research and Training）

In 2018, I published a paper called Psychological Program in the preprint psyarxiv, while I was studying it and discussing it in ResearchGate. I sent this paper to many Psychologist at the ResearchGate, including Hayes and Hoffman. Hays has read my paper, and I have his email as evidence that he read my paper in 2018, and has discussed it with me. Later, in January 2020,  I and Hayes discuss, when I told him: "the process should be a psychological process, not'treatment process", Hayes in September, changed the concept of " therapeutic process " to "biopsychosocial process", their theory becomes another theory, which became my theory.Don't underestimate this change. It turned Hayes's PBT theory into my theory. Later 2020, the PBT was left with only a PBT name, and it actually completely became my psychological program theory.

In the Hofmann paper (a process-based transtheoretical clinical research approach and the Training of individual therapy), you can see this change, and the yellow part of the paper is the changed "process". I'll send you their 2018 PBT paper (The Role of the Individual in the Coming Era of Process-Based Therapy).You can compare the two papers, their "process" is different, one is "therapeutic process ", one is "biopsychosocial process", and the latter is actually my theory, because I in 2019 "psychological process" and "physiological process" as "psychological program ", so, my theory is about" biological psychopsychosocial process ", although I didn't use the term.

Before September 2020, the "process" in the "process-based" theory of Stefan G Hofmann and Hayes et al(see:The Role of the Individual in the Coming Era of Process-Based Therapy). was the "therapeutic process", while the "process" in my paper was the "psychological process". So, before 2020, Hofmann’s and Hayes's "process-based theory" is different from my theory, because the concept of "process" is different. My "process" refers to "psychological process", "physiological process", "interpersonal relationship process", etc.,their "process" is "therapeutic process".The concept of "process" is very critical. It is the subject of the PBT theory and the subject of my theory.

I would like to remind you that Hayes's PBT paper and my paper use different terms.Hes and Hoffman are not plagiarizing an "idea," they are plagiarizing my entire theory by changing terms, and their papers on PBT theory after 2020 were plagiarizing my theory, so, this involves many of their papers. They replaced the terms in my paper with different terms, and they are experts in that field. Therefore, you use copyleaks has no way to find out plagiarism, avoid the detection of such software they are professional. They are plagiarizing "theory", not plagiarizing"the same statement or paragraph".

Also don't believe Hayes and others "PBT can be traced back to ACT, CBT, functional context, evolutionary psychology", because, their PBT and ACT before 2020 and after 2020 is different, they in January 2020 after fully modified the PBT, so, Hayes and others actually has two PBT theory, one is about "treatment process", one is about "biological psychosocial process", and the latter is my theory. However, the origin of their PBT before 2020 can be traced back to ACT, but PBT after 2020 cannot be traced back to ACT and other theories.The difference between the PBT theory after 2020 and the PBT before 2020 is huge. In fact, the two PBT's have only one name is same: PBT. The PBT after 2020 is actually my theory, and it just still uses the name PBT. after 2020, PBT has only a shell left, and its content has become a psychological program theory.

Even for professional psychologists, if they do not know enough about ACT and PBT, they can not judge whether ACT is or not the origin theory of PBT, or the difference between before PBT2020 and after 2020.Hayes's ACT theory has also been greatly modified after 2020, so his post-2020 ACT theory cannot be taken as evidence, because his ACT, like PBT, became different after 2020.If you want to establish Hayes their PBT (here refers to their PBT theory after 2020, not PBT before 2020, two PBT is different) or my psychological program theory, must be derived from a variety of specific psychological process theory of the "psychological process" abstraction as an element, these specific psychological process can be ACT six process, also can be Freud's "defense mechanism", It could also be "let it be" in Morita therapy,It can be the various processing models of cognitive psychology, or the "belief" of CBT. We can abstract this element （mental processes）from these concrete mental processes, and then use this element to establish a general psychological theory.

However, Hayes's ACT did not do this. Hays did not abstract the "psychological process" from the ACT and use it to establish a general theory. In 2018, he chose to establish the PBT theory with the "therapeutic process", where he had a wrong direction. However, after 2020, he changed the " therapeutic process" to "psychological process" (or "biopsychosocial process"), which is plagiarism my theory.ACT does not unify everything with "process", it does not abstract "process" as a tool to describe all psychological phenomena. This is a lack of an abstract upgrade to a higher level of theoretical building process. ACT is a specific theory of "psychological process" and "therapeutic process", It is not abstracted into a general theory. It is like Freud's "defense mechanism", "Morita therapy", just like the various processing models of cognitive psychology, ACT and these theories are theories of the same level, they are all concrete "psychological process" theories. The theory of mental program, or Hayes's post-2020 PBT, are all higher-level theories, general theories, which are abstracted from various specific "mental process" theories.Therefore, ACT cannot be taken as the origin of PBT (PBT after 2020), and PBT (PBT after 2020) cannot be derived from ACT. If someone says it can, then the CBT, defense mechanism, Morita therapy, evolutionary psychology and other theories can also be said.

The evolutionary psychology EEMM was proposed after September 2020, aiming to hide the fact that they changed the "therapeutic process" into "biological psychological process". They wanted to give the reader the image of"they developed PBT from evolutionary psychology", but it was not.If necessary, I can discuss these issues with professional psychologists in detail.

I put this paper in the attachment, and the yellow parts 1,2,3,4 are their concept of "process", which is copied from mine. Don't think that "process" is just a concept or an idea, it is actually the core of the theory, it is also a tool, I use it to unify all fields of psychology. However, let me remind you emphatically. Although I define "psychological process" and "physiological process" as "psychological program", I have been using the term "psychological program" in my paper, so there is no way to find out plagiarism with software such as copyleaks. Because they are plagiarizing my theory, not plagiarizing specific statements or paragraphs.I will also send you screenshots of the conversation that Hayes and I discussed in January 2020, Not only that, Hayes and Hofmann also plagiarized "analytical method", "process flow chart", etc., they plagiarized my whole theory.

This is a massive event of plagiarism, and the plagiarism involved by Hofmann and Hayes does not stop beyond this paper. They started in September 2020, after which most of their papers have plagiarized my theory of psychological program, involving many papers and authors. I have reported to other journals and the authors' universities, and they are investigating. I know Hofmann is your editor and I hope that won't affect the investigation.