Direct comparison
Type I and Type II Errors Explained
Type I error = false positive; Type II error = false negative. Compare definitions, symbols (α, β), causes, and how researchers reduce each in study design.
Written and maintained by CASRAI Editorial Board
Last updated
Ask CASRAI · free to try
Ask about Type I and Type II Errors Explained
Ask your first 2 questions free below. Subscribers get 150 a day for $29 a month.
An AI assistant specialized in research administration. It cites the sources behind every answer, labels web answers and says when it can't answer.
Answers draw on CASRAI's guides and dictionary plus the federal and funder documents we index: Federal Register, Grants.gov, Regulations.gov and UKRI.
Works on this site and inside Claude, Cursor and the AI tools you already use.
Everything CASRAI publishes — this page, the dictionary, the guides and the news — stays free to read, with no account and no card.
How do Type I Error (α), Type II Error (β) compare side by side?
The table below compares Type I Error (α), Type II Error (β) across 10 procurement-relevant dimensions, from also called through higher-stakes example.
Side-by-side comparison
| Dimension | Type I Error (α) | Type II Error (β) |
|---|---|---|
| Also called | False positive | False negative |
| What happens | Rejects a true null hypothesis | Fails to reject a false null hypothesis |
| Conclusion drawn | An effect exists when it actually doesn't | No evidence of an effect when one actually exists |
| Probability symbol | α (alpha) | β (beta) |
| Set/controlled by | Researcher, before the study (significance level, conventionally 0.05) | Sample size, effect size, and measurement precision, planned via a power analysis |
| Complement | 1−α = confidence level | 1−β = statistical power |
| Typical cause | Multiple comparisons, p-hacking, optional stopping | Small sample size, small true effect, noisy measurement |
| Origin | Neyman-Pearson framework, late 1920s–early 1930s | Neyman-Pearson framework, late 1920s–early 1930s |
| Reduced by | Lowering α, correcting for multiple comparisons, pre-registration | Larger sample size, more reliable measurement, a priori power analysis |
| Higher-stakes example | Confirmatory drug-approval trials weight this more heavily | Diagnostic screening tests often weight this more heavily (missed disease) |
Common questions
Common questions about Type I Error (α) vs Type II Error (β)
Is a Type I error the same as a false positive?
+
Yes — in hypothesis testing the two terms are used interchangeably: the test signals an effect exists when the null hypothesis is actually true.
What is the relationship between Type II error and statistical power?
+
Power equals 1−β. If the Type II error rate (β) is 0.20, power is 80% — they describe the same test from opposite directions.
Does a larger sample size fix both errors?
+
It reduces Type II error (raises power) directly. It doesn’t change α, which the researcher sets as the significance threshold — but a larger sample makes it easier to hold α fixed while still reaching adequate power.
Why is 0.05 the conventional significance level?
+
It is a widely used historical convention, not a statistical law. Fields with higher false-positive stakes or heavy multiple-testing burdens (e.g., genomics, particle physics) commonly use much stricter thresholds.
