A 2 x 2 quasi-experimental design was used to investigate the impact of extrinsic incentives and reflection on students' calibration of exam performance. We further examined the relationships among attributional style, performance, and calibration judgments. Participants were 137 college students enrolled in an educational psychology course. Results differed as a function of exam performance. Higher-performing students were very accurate in their calibration and did not show significant improvements across a semester-length course. Attributional style did not significantly contribute to their calibration judgments. Lower-performing students, however, were less accurate in their calibration, and students in the incentives condition showed significant increases in calibration. Beyond exam scores, attributional style constructs were significant predictors of calibration judgments for these students. The constructs targeting study and social variables accounted for most of the additional explained variance. The qualitative data also revealed differences by performance level in open-ended explanations for calibration judgments.