Two empirical judgment phenomena appear to contradict each other. In the revision-of-opinion literature, subjective probability (SP) judgments have been analyzed as a function of objective probability (OP) and generally have been found to be conservative, that is, to represent underconfidence. In the calibration literature, analyses of OP (operationalized as relative frequency correct) as a function of SP have led to the opposite conclusion, that judgment is generally overconfident. The authors reanalyze 3 studies and show that both results can be obtained from the same set of data, depending on the method of analysis. The simultaneous effects are then generated and factors influencing them are explored by means of a model that instantiates a very general theory of how SP estimates arise from true judgments perturbed by random error. Theoretical and practical implications of the work are discussed.