The accuracy of metacognitive judgments is rarely incentivized in experiments, hence, it depends on the participants' willingness to invest cognitive resources and respond to the best of their knowledge. According to arguments promoted in economic research, metacognitive abilities might have therefore been underestimated in the past. In two experiments (N = 128 and N = 129), we explored the impact of incentives on the accuracy of JOLs (judgments of learning), memory performance, and cue use using word lists and free recall. We introduced a linear payoff scheme with a maximum of 5 cents per judgment to promote the accuracy of JOLs in predicting recall success while simultaneously discouraging participants from strategic responding in the memory test. The results showed that incentivization of JOLs had no effect whatsoever on memory performance which is good news. Metacognitive accuracy in terms of resolution (Kruskal's Gamma) was slightly improved in Experiment 1, but not in Experiment 2. On the more negative side, the incentives boosted JOLs indiscriminately, producing substantial overconfidence. A deeper analysis including cues like word concreteness, imagery, arousal, frequency, subjective relevance and font size showed their usual and simultaneous effects on JOLs that were, however, largely unaffected in size by incentivizing JOLs. In summary, incentives for accuracy do not improve the resolution accuracy of JOLs to an extent that outweighs the inflation of overconfidence. Hence, the current results do not imply future use of incentivized studies in the field of metamemory.