I think there will be some cases where the simpler model is more powerful, and some cases where the full model is more powerful. A couple of examples in R:
Example 1: Full model is more powerful
library(mvtnorm)
set.seed(1)
n <- 1000
X <- rmvnorm(n, sigma = matrix(c(1, 0.5, 0.5, 1), nrow=2))
A <- X[,1]
B <- X[,2]
Y <- 1 - A + 2*B + rnorm(n, 0, 1)
cor(A, Y)
[1] 0.03338526
# Simple correlation of A with Y will tend to be very low, so model
# with A alone will have low power
# These don't really demonstrate the power, but they give you an idea
summary(lm(Y ~ A + B))
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.01624 0.03260 31.18 <2e-16 ***
A -0.95187 0.03643 -26.13 <2e-16 ***
B 2.00990 0.03628 55.41 <2e-16 ***
---
summary(lm(Y ~ A))
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.99436 0.06580 15.112 <2e-16 ***
A 0.06699 0.06348 1.055 0.292
Example 2: Reduced model is more powerful
set.seed(1)
X <- rmvnorm(n, sigma = matrix(c(1, 0.5, 0.5, 1), nrow=2))
A <- X[,1]
B <- X[,2]
Y <- 1 + 0.01*A + 2*B + rnorm(n, 0, 1)
cor(A, Y)
[1] 0.4731269 # This correlation is made higher because of the correlation between A and B
# Again, these don't demonstrate the power, but they give you an idea
summary(lm(Y ~ A + B))
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 1.01624 0.03260 31.176 <2e-16 ***
A 0.05813 0.03643 1.596 0.111
B 2.00990 0.03628 55.407 <2e-16 ***
summary(lm(Y ~ A))
Coefficients:
Estimate Std. Error t value Pr(>|t|)
(Intercept) 0.99436 0.06580 15.11 <2e-16 ***
A 1.07699 0.06348 16.97 <2e-16 ***
# This Y ~ A model has higher power for an A effect than the Y ~ A + B model, but
# the effect it detects is not the "real" effect of A